You are on page 1of 2

PEOPLE’S HOMESITE AND HOUSING CORP v. JEREMIAS court’s decision to the CFI but the same was dismissed.

G.R. No. L-43252 September 30, 1976 Hence, CAPITAL brought this instant action
Muñoz-Palma, J.
ISSUE: WON CAPITAL (surety) has standing to appeal the order
FACTS: for a writ of execution on the performance bond even when it
was not initially a party in the ejectment case 1
 Sps. Corazon and Geronimo JEREMIAS were the occupants of
a lot located at East Ave, QC owned by People’s Homesite and HELD: YES, they have standing to appeal. However, on the
Housing Corp (PHHC) merits, the performance bond is not exempt for execution on
 JEREMIAS had previously offered to buy said lot from PHHC the ground of expiration
but the final award was given to Sps. Tiongco instead.
Claiming to have preferential right over the lot, JEREMIAS RATIO:
protested PHHC’s award of the lot to the Tiongcos and  A party is one who is to be benefited or injured by a
continued occupying said lot judgment or order of a court, and includes any person who
 Their protest notwithstanding, an action for forcible entry is a "party to the record."
and illegal detainer was instituted by PHHC against JEREMIAS  While it is a fact that the initial parties in the complaint for
before the Municipal Court (later City Court) of QC sometime forcible entry and detainer were PHHC and the spouses
in 1960 JEREMIAS, however, when the latter filed a performance
 Oct 1961, judgment was rendered in favor of PHHC and the bond to insure the execution of the judgment in said case and
lower court ordered JEREMIAS to vacate the premises and PHHC moved to execute that bond, the surety company
pay PHHC rentals in the amount of P36 per month with 6% CAPITAL became necessarily a party in the case when notice
interest thereon from Feb 1960 until they vacated the was served on it of the motion, and the inferior court granted
premises and restored possession of the same to PHHC a writ of execution against its performance bond. The order
 JEREMIAS did not appeal said judgment/order “on the of execution was a final order insofar as the surety-appellant
ejectment case,” hence, on June 1962, a writ of execution was concerned, hence, appealable
was issued. However, the same was not implemented  In spite of CAPITAL’s standing to appeal the writ of execution
prompting the court to require JEREMIAS to file a against its performance bond, the same must however be
performance bond in the amount of P1,100 to secure the dismissed on the ground that CAPITAL’s contention that the
performance of their obligation to PHHC in accordance with performance bond has already expired is devoid of merit
the above orders/judgment  The pertinent provision of the performance bond duly filed in
 JEREMIAS complied and filed a surety bond issued by the the ejectment case states: “Liability of surety on this bond will
Capital Insurance and Surety Co., Inc. (CAPITAL) in the expire upon final termination of the ejectment case and said
amount of P1,100 bond will be cancelled 15 days after its expiration, unless
 Oct 1963, the PHHC finally resolved JEREMIAS’s protest and renewed.”
sustained the award of the lot to the Tiongcos. This caused  CAPITAL argues that the final termination of the ejectment
the lower court to issue an alias writ of execution of its Oct case (subject of its suretyship) came on Sept 1965, the date
1961 judgment; however, JEREMIAS refused to comply. Upon of SC Minute Resolution. And there having been no demand
motion and after due hearing, thus, the lower court issued a within 15 days after that date, the bond had effectively
special order of demolition against JEREMIAS’s property in expired  this contention is UNTENABLE!
the lot in question  Firstly, it is erroneous for CAPITAL to claim that the decision
 To forestall the demolition, JEREMIAS appealed the lower “on the ejectment case” became final on Sept 1965. What
court’s demolition order to the CFI, which was dismissed. obtained finality on that date of final entry of judgment was
They went up to the CA but there they failed, too. Then, to the order of dismissal by the CFI of JEREMIAS’s appeal “on the
the SC, and guess what, they failed there again demotion order”
 Final entry of judgment “on the demolition order” was made  Recall that when CAPITAL's surety bond was filed, the lower
after the SC issued said dismissal of JEREMIAS’s appeal via court’s decision “on the ejectment case” had already become
Minute Resolution on Sept 1965 final since JEREMIAS did not appeal the same. Hence, the
 On the basis of the SC’s decision above, on Feb 1968, PHHC phrase "upon final termination of ejectment case” appearing
sought from the now City Court of QC a writ of execution on in the bond could not have referred to the date of finality of
the performance bond filed by JEREMIAS and issued by the the decision “on the demotion order”
surety CAPITAL. Notice of PHHC’s motion was duly sent to  IN ANY CASE, a civil case is deemed terminated not upon the
CAPITAL rendition of the final judgment but UPON EXECUTION and
 CAPITAL opposed said prayer for a writ of execution against satisfaction of said final judgment
the performance bond and disclaimed liability thereon on the
ground that its performance bond had already expired
 City Court granted PHHC’s prayer and issued writ of execution 1It seems that only this procedural issue was elevated to the SC for decision.
on CAPITAL’s performance bond. CAPITAL appealed lower The case did not mention whether the issue on the merits of CAPITAL’s
appeal was indeed alleged. But the SC nevertheless ruled on that part to
prevent further delays in this case.
 An execution is the fruit and end of the suit, and is very aptly
called the life of the law. The suit does not terminate with the
judgment and all proceedings on the execution, are
proceedings in the suit
 Execution is the process of the court for carrying its decree
into effect, and except so far as regulated by statute, is still
within the court's control. The suit is not ended by the
judgment; it is still pending.
 The case of Naric vs. Rivera invoked by CAPITAL is not in point
because in that Naric case, the bond executed by the surety
contained specific date for its expiration . On the other hand,
in the bond filed by CAPITAL, there was no specific date
provided for the bond's expiration

You might also like