G.R. No. L-11030; March 30, 1917
DOMINGO ENRILE, as administrator of the Estate of Maria Dolores Reyes, deceased, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF BULACAN and FELIPE BERNABE, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS:
Petitioner Domingo Enrile, as administrator, obtained a favorable judgment in a forcible entry and detainer case in a justice of the peace court of Bulacan. The judgment awarded possession of the land and the amount of P16.33 for its use and occupation. The defendants (Felipe Bernabe, et al.) appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI). While most appellants posted the required appeal bond, none of them deposited the amount of the monetary judgment in the justice’s court as mandated by Section 88 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Enrile moved to dismiss the appeal in the CFI for this failure to perfect the appeal. The CFI denied the motion, instead giving the appellants an opportunity to make the required deposit in the CFI itself. Enrile’s subsequent motions for reconsideration and dismissal were also denied, with the CFI ordering the appellants to deposit the rent for the year 1915. Enrile then filed this petition for mandamus to compel the CFI to dismiss the appeal.

During the pendency of this mandamus action, the Philippine Legislature enacted Act No. 2588 , which amended Section 88 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The amendment provided that the failure to make the required deposit no longer warranted dismissal of the appeal. Instead, upon motion and proof, the court should order execution of the justice’s court judgment but continue to hear and decide the appeal on its merits.

ISSUE:
Whether the petition for mandamus to compel the dismissal of the appeal should be granted, considering the subsequent enactment of Act No. 2588 which changed the procedural consequence of an appellant’s failure to deposit the judgment amount.

RULING:
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for mandamus. The Court held that Act No. 2588 , being a procedural law, is applicable to pending cases. The Act was enacted precisely to remedy the hardship caused by the dismissal of appeals in forcible entry cases for mere failure to make the deposit. Since the law now only mandates execution of the money judgment while allowing the appeal on the issue of possession to proceed, the respondent CFI was correct in not dismissing the appeal. The writ of mandamus, which seeks to compel a ministerial duty, cannot issue to order a dismissal that is no longer required or justified under the new law. The action was dismissed without costs.

This is AI (Gemini and Deepseek) Generated. Please Double Check. Powered by Armztrong.