In ejectment cases, judgment immediately executory; exception

Date Published:
In ejectment cases, execution issues immediately if judgment is rendered in favor of defendant subject to the conditions found in Section 19 of Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, to wit:
Sec. 19. Immediate execution of judgment; how to stay same. - If judgment is rendered against the defendant, execution shall issue immediately upon motion unless an appeal has been perfected and the defendant to stay execution files a sufficient supersedeas bond, approved by the Municipal Trial Court and executed in favor of the plaintiff to pay the rents, damages, and costs accruing down to the time of the judgment appealed from, and unless, during the pendency of the appeal, he deposits with the appellate court the amount of rent due from time to time under the contract, if any, as determined by the judgment of the Municipal Trial Court. In the absence of a contract, he shall deposit with the Regional Trial Court the reasonable value of the use and occupation of the premises for the preceding month or period at the rate determined by the judgment of the lower court on or before the tenth day of each succeeding month or period. The supersedeas bond shall be transmitted by the Municipal Trial Court, with the papers, to the clerk of the Regional Trial Court to which the action is appealed.
To stay the immediate execution of the said judgment while the appeal is pending the foregoing provision requires that the following requisites must concur: (1) the defendant perfects his appeal; (2) he files a supersedeas bond; and (3) he periodically deposits the rentals which become due during the pendency of the appeal.[1]However, this rule is not without any exception. In the case of Aznar Brothers Realty Co. v. Court of Appeals,[2] this Court categorically stated that "[a]n exception is where the trial court did not make any findings with respect to any amount in arrears, damages or costs against the defendant, in which case no bond is necessary to stay the execution of the judgment."[3]

The case of Aznar further elaborates that "damages" does not include "attorney's fees" and "costs" as the "damages referred to therein are the reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the property which are generally measured by its fair rental value and cannot refer to other damages which are foreign to the enjoyment or material possession of the property."[4]
[1]Acbang v. Judge Luczon, et al, 724 Phil. 256, 262 (2014) citing Spouses Chua v. CA, 350 Phil. 74, 83 (2008).
[2]384 Phil. 95 (2000).
[3]Id. at 107-108.
[4]Id. at 108.

ALSO READ: G.R. No. 210864, June 18, 2018.