RULE 39

PROVIDENT INTL RESOURCES CORP vs. COURT OF APPEALS

Brief Statement of the Case
This is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed
against the decision of the CA annulling an order of execution of the Regional
Trial Court of Makati, in an expropriation case.
Brief Statement of Facts
Paranaque City filed a civil case for the expropriation of several lots which
was owned by herein petitioner. After depositing the required amount in the
court, it filed an ex-parte motion for issuance of a writ of possession. The
court granted the motion.
Subsequently, PIRC moved for reconsideration of the decision. It contended,
among others, that the court has no jurisdiction over the property because
the same is in custody of PCGG by virtue of a pending action. It prayed as
well that the LGU should vacate the property.
Issue in the RTC: Whether or not the expropriation case should be denied
and the LGU be ordered to vacate
Ruling: The expropriation case is denied. The LGU is ordered to vacate.
Paranaque moved to reconsider but the same was denied. It later filed an
appeal but before it is transmitted to the CA, PIRC asked for a writ of
execution of the aforesaid decision. The court then granted the latters
petition.

stated in a special order. If a record on appeal is filed thereafter, the motion

and the special order shall be included therein.
The aforesaid Section 2 prescribes the following requisites for the valid
exercise of the discretion: (a) there must be a motion by the prevailing party
with notice to the adverse party; (b) there must be a good reason for
execution pending appeal; and (c) the good reason must be stated in a
special order.
Our examination of PIRCs motion for the issuance of a writ implementing the
order to vacate and the appointment of the special sheriff shows that it
contained no notice of hearing to PARAAQUE. The notice was a request
directed to the Clerk of Court to submit the motion to the court for its
consideration and approval immediately upon receipt thereof, A notice of
hearing addressed to the Clerk of Court, and not to the parties, is no notice at
all.
To these must be added the palpable absence of any good reason to justify
execution pending appeal. In the subject incident, defendant alleges and
explains that the continued possession of the Municipality of defendants
property has caused and will continue to cause great damage to defendant.
Good reasons that allow or justify execution pending appeal must be superior
circumstances demanding urgency which will outweigh the injury or damage
should the losing party secure a reversal of the judgment.
The above reasons relied upon by the trial court hardly qualify as good. In
the first place, PIRC did not offer any evidence to prove the great damage it
alleged in its motion.
Public interest was clearly involved, thus prudence and utmost
circumspection, instead of undue haste, should have guided the trial court
away from capriciousness.

Issue in the SC: Whether or not the CA erred in annulling the order granting
the writ of execution
Ruling of the SC: The court ruled in the negative. Section 2, Rule 39 of the
Rules of Court provides:
Sec. 2. Execution pending appeal.- On motion of the prevailing party with
notice to the adverse party, the court may in its discretion, order execution to
issue before the expiration of the time to appeal, upon good reasons to be

BELL TRADING CORPORATION vs.CA

Brief Statement of the Facts
In the Regional Trial Court at Pasig, Manila Bay Spinning Mills, Inc. sued
Carpets International (Phils.), Inc. for the recovery of the unpaid balance of
the purchase price of yarn ordered by the latter. The complaint contained an

application for preliminary attachment. Carpets International filed an answer

admitting certain facts but mostly deny all other allegations.
The writ of preliminary attachment prayed for in the complaint issued ex parte
and pursuant thereto, the sheriff seized the machinery, equipment, raw
materials and finished products ostensibly belonging to Carpets International.
Later, an affidavit of third-party claim was presented by herein petitioner. In
that affidavit, it laid claim to some of the attached property, i.e., the inventory,
finished products and hand tools.
In a motion, private respondent moved for leave to implead petitioner as
party defendant for the reason that it and Carpets International are one and
the same entity. It was granted.
Private respondent filed a motion for summary judgment dated 20 August
1985 for the reason that the indebtedness, the amount thereof, and the
ownership of the attached properties were all admitted by Carpets
International. The honorable Judge then rendered a summary judgment.
Subsequently, private respondent moved for execution pending appeal for
the reason, among others, that (1) the finished goods that were attached
easily deteriorate and go out of fashion insofar as the shades and colors are
concerned, thus making them unsaleable, and their continued storage will
only make them dirty and further depreciate their value. It was granted. A
motion to reconsider was file but it was denied.
Issue: Whether or not it was error on the part of the IAC in not nullifying the
orders of the court a quo
Ruling: The court ruled in the negative. In the first place, the judgment of the
Trial Court sought to be annulled has become final and executory by reason
of BCITC's failure to appeal therefrom within the time appointed, i.e., 15 days
from notice of the judgment. The summary judgment was unquestionably a
final one. No appeal was taken from the summary judgment. Instead a
petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court was filed with the
Intermediate Appellate Court praying for the annulment of the judgment.
In any event, the facts, as found by the Intermediate Appellate Court to have
been duly established from the pleadings, affidavits and other papers on
record, show that the summary judgment was correctly and properly
rendered by the Trial Court. The issues raised by Carpets International and
BCITC in their answers (to the complaint of MBSMI) are demonstrably sham,
fictitious, contrived.

YASUDA vs. COURT OF APPEALS

Brief Statement of the Case
This is a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the
Revised Rules of Court seeking reversal of the decision of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 31402 on November 11, 1993 and setting aside
the writs of execution pending appeal issued by the Regional Trial Court of
Makati, Branch 59.
Brief Statement of the Case
Petitioner filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court of Makati, to
collect from defendants YRL Shipping Co. S.A., Azucar Shipping Corp.,
Eduardo Lopingco, Enrique Rojas, and Arnold Savella a certain sum of
money. It also asked for damages, issuance of an arrest order, preliminary
attachment, restraining order and injunction. The amount represents the
alleged equity interest and share of petitioner in the income of YRL Shipping
Co. derived from its operations here in the Philippines under a Bareboat
Charter Agreement with the Azucar Shipping Corp. Such amount was
allegedly withheld by the defendants from petitioner.
In an order dated January 16, 1990, the RTC granted petitioner's prayer for
the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment.
After trial on the merits, the trial court rendered a decision in favor of the
petitioner-plaintiff. In addition, it ordered the defendants to pay actual, moral,
exemplary damages, and attorney's fees.
Defendants, except Savella, appealed the decision of the Regional Trial
Court.
On February 16, 1993 upon petitioner's motion and over the vigorous
opposition of defendants except Savella, the trial court issued an order
allowing execution pending appeal of a portion of its decision awarding actual
or compensatory damages. The trial court found that there are good reasons
to justify the execution of the judgment pending appeal, namely, that the
appeal taken by the defendants is dilatory; that herein petitioner is a
Japanese national and is sickly; that the vessel M/V "Valiant" has been left to
waste and deteriorating at the pier, and is in grave danger of losing its value;
and that petitioner posted bond to answer for any damages which the

defendants may suffer if the court later finds that petitioner is not entitled
thereto. Accordingly, the trial court issued a writ of execution.
Brief Statement of the Facts
However, the defendants cannot be located and their properties could not be
determined by the sheriff. Hence, they go after private respondent.
Private respondent Blue Cross, as surety of the defendants, sought recourse
to the CA.
Issue: Whether or not the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in setting
aside the writ of execution
Ruling: The court ruled in the affirmative. The prevailing doctrine as provided
for in Par. 3, section 2 of Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of civil Procedure is that
discretionary execution is permissible only when good reasons exist for
immediately executing the judgment before finality or pending appeal or even
before the expiration of the period to appeal. Good reasons consist of
compelling circumstances justifying the immediate execution lest judgment
becomes illusory, or the prevailing party after the lapse of time be unable to
enjoy it, considering the tactics of the adverse party who may apparently
have no case but to delay.
One "good reason" upheld by this Court to justify execution pending appeal
is the deterioration of commodities subject of litigation. In the present case,
petitioner, in his Motion for Execution Pending Appeal, cites as a ground for
its allowance, the deteriorating condition of the vessel, M/V "Valiant". He
claims that the vessel has been left to rot at the pier and without a crew to
guard it. It is in grave danger of losing its value. The vessel, practically
abandoned, is exposed to the varied elements of nature, such as rains and
storms, not to mention human elements such as invasion or robbery.

Marcelo de Borja had left upon his death considerable property consisting
mostly of lands, and the proceedings for the settlement of his estate were
commenced in the Court of First Instance of Rizal about thirty years ago and
still pending.
As long ago as February, 1940, the probate court approved a project of
partition, which is now final. That project of partition allotted to the estate of
Quintin de Borja, then already deceased, certain properties as his share in
the inheritance with this proviso: that "before delivery of the properties
adjudicated to the testate estate of Quintin de Borja, the administrator of his
estate (shall) execute the corresponding document of transfer in favor of the
intestate estate of Marcelo de Borja, of all the rights, interests, and
participations that said Quintin de Borja has in civil case No. 6190 in the
Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija entitled 'Quintin de Borja versus
Feliciana Mariana'." The Nueva Ecija litigation referred to involved real
properties registered in Quintin de Borja's name but claimed to be a part of
Marcelo de Borja's estate; and to pave the way for the partition, which
Quintin de Borja's children keenly desired, the latter agreed to transfer those
properties to Marcelo de Borja's intestate estate.
In pursuance of the terms of the partition, Marcela de Borja Vda. de Torres,
as special administratrix of the estate of Quintin de Borja, on July 6, 1950
made a deed denominated "Cession of Rights,the pertinent part of which
"sets and transfers absolutely and irrevocably unto the estate of Marcelo de
Borja (special proceedings No. 2414 Court of First Instance of Rizal).
It was on the strength of this cession of rights that the court issued the order
whose execution Crisanto de Borja, the petitioner, wanted to stop.

DE BORJA vs. ENCARNACION

Issue: Whether or not the execution of the cession rights be restrained

Brief Statement of the Case

Ruling: The court ruled in the negative. This intestate proceedings has been
pending in this court for almost 29 years now. The Court can not justice
continue to withhold from the heirs this estate the possession and enjoyment
of the properties assigned to them in the Project of Partition. As a necessary
precaution, however, the court required the heirs to post adequate and
sufficient bond to respond for any lawful obligation that may be adjudged
against them, if any, later on.

This is a petition for certiorari to review an order of execution of

another order, which had been or was to be appealed, directing the herein
petitioner, Crisanto de Borja, in his capacity as administrator of the intestate
estate of Marcelo de Borja pending in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, "to
deliver the properties assigned in the project of partition to the heirs, Marcela,
Saturnina, Juan, Eufrasia, Jacoba and Olimpia, all surnamed De Borja, within
five days."

It will be observed that this court has made similar orders for the delivery of
the inheritance assigned to the other heirs of this estate. No appeal has been

interposed against any of them. The court therefore understands that the
other heirs have already received from the administrator the properties
adjudicated to them, or that the same is in process. It is repugnant to all
sense of fairness and justice to withhold from one group of heirs the
inheritance due them when the others have already received theirs, or are
about to do so. Even if all of the heirs are not similarly placed, the fact
remains that the administrator or any other party is duly protected and can
find relief, if he is entitled to any, against the bonds that the he airs have
posted.
It is the desire of this court to close this proceedings as promptly as
practicable. The court expects co-operation from all the parties, principally
the administrator and admonishes them to refrain from taking any step
tending to delay the speedy settlement of this estate.

LISING vs. HONORABLE ANDRES PLAN

Brief Statement of the Case
This is a Petition for mandamus filed by petitioner-spouses Exequiel
Lising and Loreta Viola to compel respondent Judge to issue a Writ of
Execution in Civil Case No. Br. II-428 and Civil Case No. Br. II-765 of the
Court of First Instance of Isabela, against respondent spouses Vicente
Garcia and Estrella Magat.
Brief Statement of the Facts
The LISINGS were the original registered owners of a lot consisting
of several hectares located at Santiago, Isabela. The Disputed Property
became the subject of four civil suits, all decided by the Court of First
Instance of Isabela.
In Civil Case No. 65 (Exequiel Lising vs. Gaspar Aquino, or the
LISING-AQUINO Case), it was declared that AQUINO is the owner of the
southwestern portion of the Disputed Property.
The LISINGS, however, sold the entire lot to private respondent
Mamerto LICUANAN. Subsequently, the LISINGS offered to repurchase the
lot, but LICUANAN refused. In Civil Case No. II-428 (Exequiel and Loreta
Lising us. Mamerto Licuanan, or the LISING-LICUANAN Case), the Trial
Court rendered a summary judgment declaring the LISINGS entitled to
repurchase, and ordering LICUANAN to resell and reconvey to them the
Disputed Property, but set to another date the fixing of the repurchase price.

Later, Licuanan filed a complaint for quieting of title. In Civil Case No.
II-765 (Mamerto Licuanan us. Exequiel Lising and Loreta Viola, or the
LICUANAN-LISING Case), the court ruled that Lising has already sold his
right to repurchase to Licuanan and therefore, had already lost it.
The LISINGs appealed and the decision was reversed
Meanwhile, LICUANAN sold the Disputed Property to respondent
spouses Vicente GARCIA and Estrella Magat. In Civil Case No. Br. II-891
(Vicente Garcia vs. Gaspar Aquino, or the GARCIA-AQUINO Case), Garcia
wanted to recover the portion of the lot ceded to Aquino but the court ruled
that he is a purchaser in bad faith, therefore, has no right over the disputed
property.
Subsequently, the LISINGS filed a Motion for Execution in the
LISING- LICUANAN Case, which had adjudged them entitled to
repurchase.The LISINGS filed another Motion for the inclusion of the
GARCIAS in the Writ of Execution. The GARCIAS opposed the Motion since
they were not parties and alleged that a separate civil action was the
appropriate remedy so that all parties could be accorded due process of law.
Issue: Whether or not, under the environmental circumstances, execution
may be enforced even as against the GARCIAS
Ruling: Affirmative. In the GARCIA-AQUINO Case, wherein the GARCIAS
sought recovery of possession of the Aquino Lot premised on their ownership
of the entirety of the Disputed Property, the Trial Court, affirmed by the
Appellate Court, held that the GARCIAS were purchasers in bad faith and,
consequently, were bereft of any right of ownership. That judgment
definitively established their non-entitlement to the Disputed Property so that
any separate civil action for the determination of their rights is rendered
unnecessary.
The cancellation of the lis pendens on the LICUANAN title prior to the
purchase by the GARCIAS need not alter the foregoing conclusion as it was
prematurely done while the appeal in the LICUANAN-LISING Case was still
with the Appellate Court. Having been aware of the pendency of the LISINGLICUANAN and the LICUANAN-LISING Cases, the GARCIAS should have
intervened in those suits for the protection of their alleged rights. Having
failed to do so, they are bound by the results.