16. YES.

On the other hand, Article 2125 of the Civil Code states:

Article 2125. In addition to the requisites stated in Article 2085, it is indispensable, in order that a
mortgage may be validly constituted, that the document in which it appears be recorded in the Registry
of Property. If the instrument is not recorded, the mortgage is nevertheless binding between the parties.

(PCSO v NEW DAGUPAN METRO GAS CORPORATION, PURITA E. PERALTA and PATRICIA P. GALANG)

17.NO. The court can only award damages in ejectment cases refer only to:

1. fair and reasonable value of the use and enjoyment of the prop or the rent arising from possession

2.liquidation damages when they form part of the contract

18. a) stay execution mtc decision on ejectment

1)defendant perfects his appeal

2)file sufficient supersedeas bond to pay the rents, damages and cost accruing down

3)makes periodical deposits with RTC during pendency of the appeal the amount of rent due
time to time under the contract or in the absence of a contract the reasonable value of the use and
occupation of the premises

b)File petition for review under Rule 42

19.

a)Petition for certiorari or prohibition. Pending the resolution the execution of the judgment for
direct contempt shall be suspended. The suspension, however, shall take place only if the person
adjuged in contempt files a bond fixed by the court which rendered the judgment

b)Appeal such judgment or final order to the proper court as in criminal cases(by notice of
appeal). Judgment against a person adjuged to be in contempt is immediately executory and can be
stoppped only by filing a bond

20.

a) No. Hence, the contempt proceedings initiated through an unverified Motion for Contempt
filed by the respondent with the PARAD were invalid for the following reasons:[24] First, the Rules of
Court clearly require the filing of a verified petition with the Regional Trial Court, which was not
complied with in this case. The charge was not initiated by the PARAD motu proprio; rather, it was by a
motion filed by respondent. Second, neither the PARAD nor the DARAB have jurisdiction to decide the
contempt charge filed by the respondent. The issuance of a warrant of arrest was beyond the power of
the PARAD and the DARAB. Consequently, all the proceedings that stemmed from respondents Motion
for Contempt, specifically the Orders of the PARAD

b) Evidently, quasi-judicial agencies that have the power to cite persons for indirect contempt
pursuant to Rule 71 of the Rules of Court can only do so by initiating them in the proper Regional Trial
Court. It is not within their jurisdiction and competence to decide the indirect contempt cases. These
matters are still within the province of the Regional Trial Courts. In the present case, the indirect
contempt charge was filed, not with the Regional Trial Court, but with the PARAD, and it was the PARAD
that cited Mr. Lorayes with indirect contempt. (LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs.
SEVERINO LISTANA)