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 other papers, to the clerk of the Regional Trial Court to which the action is appealed.
All amounts so paid to the appellate court shall be deposited with said court or authorized government depositary bank, and shall be held there until the final disposition of the appeal, unless the court, by agreement of the interested parties, or in the absence of reasonable grounds of opposition to a motion to withdraw, or for justifiable reasons, shall decree otherwise. Should the defendant fail to make the payments above prescribed from time to time during the pendency of the appeal, the appellate court, upon
motion of the plaintiff, and upon proof of such failure, shall order the execution of the judgment appealed from with respect to the restoration of possession, but such execution shall not be a bar to the appeal taking its course until the final disposition thereof on the merits.
After the case is decided by the Regional Trial Court, any money paid to the court by the defendant for purposes of the stay of execution shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the judgment of the Regional Trial Court. In any case wherein it appears that the defendant has been deprived of the lawful possession of land or building pending the appeal by virtue of the execution of the judgment of the Municipal Trial Court, damages for such deprivation of possession and restoration of possession may be allowed the defendant in the judgment of the Regional Trial Court disposing of the appeal. (8a)
6. Rosalinda, who is leasing an apartment in RER Subd., CDO from Fernando Jose, a resident in Iligan City, under a 5 - Year Contract expiring on June 30, 2002, is in arrears in her rent for 5 months as of March 15, 2000. Fernando’s lawyer sends a demand letter to Rosalinda to pay and vacate the apartment within 30 days. Suppose that Rosalinda upon receipt of the letter immediately pays the back rentals claiming that she was so busy with her boyfriends that she neglected to pay her rent. May Fernando still file an unlawful detainer case against Rosalinda?
No. Fernando cannot anymore file an unlawful detainer case against Rosalinda because unlawful detainer case can only prosper if the person is deprived of the possession of any land or building and this has been unlawfully withheld after the expiration or termination of the right to hold possession by virtue of any contract, express or implied.
Sec. 2. Lessor to proceed against lessee only after demand. - Unless otherwise stipulated, such action by the lessor shall be commenced only after demand to pay or comply with the conditions of the lease and to vacate is made upon the lessee, or by serving written notice of such demand upon the person found on the premises, or by posting such notice on the premises if no person be found thereon, and the lessee fails to comply therewith after fifteen (15) days in the case of land or five (5) days in the case of buildings. (2a)
7. After the demand letter was sent to Rosalinda, she failed to comply with it, and consequently Fernando filed an ejectment case with the MTCC in CDO without going through the conciliation process at the Brgy level. The amount due was P9,880, hence, summary procedure was followed. May Rosalinda file a motion to dismiss for non-compliance with the requirements of the Brgy. Conciliation process?
Since the parties does not live in the same place, the action of Fernando in filing the ejectment case in MTCC in CDOC without resorting first to the brgy. Conciliation process was proper.
Sec. 12. Referral for conciliation. - Cases requiring referral for conciliation, where there is no showing of compliance with such requirement, shall be dismissed without prejudice, and may be revived only after that requirement shall have been complied with. (18a, RSP)
8. Hibok2 Corp is the lessee of a building owned by Mr. Andrade paying rental 30k a month. The owner died on 11/10/1999, and since then the corp has not paid the rentals now amounting
to 150k because 3 women are both claiming to be widows of Andrade and are demanding the rental payments. What legal action may the corp. take, before what court, and against whom to protect the corp’s interests?
Section 1. When interpleader proper. - Whenever conflicting claims upon the same