SUPERSEDEAS BOND IN EJECTMENT CASE

What is a Supersedeas Bond?

Supersedeas Bond is a bond that the court requires from the defendant in an ejectment case
who wants to stay the immediate execution of the adverse judgment during the pendency of the
appeal. (Sec. 19, Rule 70, Rules of Court)

Why is it required?

Such bond is required to assure the payment of damages to the winning party in case the
appeal is found frivolous. Sps. Badillo vs. Hon. Tayag, G.R. No. 143976. April 3, 2003

The supersedeas bond secures the payment of the rents and damages adjudged in the appealed
judgment. It answers only for rentals as fixed in the judgment and not for those that
may accrue during the pendency of the appeal, which are, in turn, guaranteed by the periodical
deposits to be made by the defendant. The supersedeas bond and the monthly deposits are
primarily designed to ensure that the plaintiff would be paid the back rentals or
the compensation for the use and occupation of the premises, should the inferior courts decision
in his favor be affirmed on appeal. Hence, if no bond was filed or no monthly deposit was made,
the plaintiff is entitled to the possession of the premises. To allow the defendant in an ejectment
case to continue his possession without any security for the rentals would be prejudicial to the
plaintiff. He might not be able to recover the back rentals when the judgment in his favor
becomes final and executory. In that event, his claim for rentals would be illusory and
ineffectual. Ricafort vs. Judge Gonzales, A.M. No. RTJ-03-1798. September 7, 2004

How is the amount of the superseades bond computed?

The supersedeas bond shall be equivalent to the (1) unpaid rentals, (2) damages and
(3) costs which accrued down to the time of the judgment. (Sec. 19, Rule 70, Rules of Court)

The supersedeas bond shall be equivalent to the unpaid rentals, damages and costs which
accrued before the decision was rendered. The bond does not answer for amounts accruing
during the pendency of the appeal, which are, in turn, the subject of the periodic deposits to be
made by the defendant. Sps. Marciano Chua and Chua Cho, G.R. No. 113886. February 24, 1998

The purpose of the supersedeas bond is to answer for the rents, damages and costs accruing
down to the judgment of the inferior court appealed from, the amount of which is to be
determined from the judgment of said court. Cordova vs. Labayen, A.M. No. RTJ-93-1033, October
10, 1995

Are attorney's fees covered by a superseades bond?

Attorney's fees are not covered by a supersedeas bond.

The damages that may be recovered in an action for ejectment within the meaning of Section 8,
Rule 72, refer to the reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the property to which
the plaintiff is entitled which generally is measured by the fair rental value of the property. It
cannot refer to other kind of damages which are foreign to the enjoyment or material possession
of the property. Consequently, the attorney's fees in question cannot be considered
as damages. Castueras vs. Hon. Bayona, G.R. No. L-13657, October 16, 1959

BAR QUESTION: While the ejectment suit was pending before the Municipal Court, Juan
Santos religiously deposits all current rentals. In due time, the judge ordered Juan Santos to pay
all rents until he vacates the premises as well as attorney's fees in the amount of P5,000.000. Maria
Cruz moves for immediate execution on the ground that Juan Santos did not deposit the
attorney's fees of P5,000.00 and he did not put a supersedeas bond for the award. Should the
court grant immediate execution? Decide with reasons. (Bar 1990)

Suggested answer:
The court should not grant immediate execution. A supersedeas bond covers rentals in arrears up
to the time of the judgment. Since there are no unpaid rentals, there is no reason for the bond.
Also, the Rules do not require a deposit for attorney's fees, so execution may be stayed.

Is superseades bond required if the judgment does not make any pronouncement on the
pecuniary liability of the defendant?

The supersedeas bond covers the monetary judgment of the lower court. If the judgment does
not make any pronouncement the pecuniary liability of the defendant, the bond should not be
required.

When the State litigates, is it required to put up a bond?

There is a rationale for requiring a losing party to file a supersedeas bond in order to stay the
immediate execution of a judgment in an ejectment case. Such bond is required to assure the
payment of damages to the winning party in case the appeal is found frivolous.

In the present cases, the posting of a supersedeas bond is not necessary to stay the execution of
the MTC Order. When a case involves provable rents or damages incurred by a government-
owned or controlled corporation, the real party in interest is the Republic of the Philippines.
When the State litigates, it is not required to put up a bond for damages or even an appeal bond
-- either directly or indirectly through its authorized officers -- because it is presumed to be
always solvent.

Thus, it would be unnecessary to ask the NHA to file a bond because to do so would be to
indirectly require the government to submit the bond. And the State is not required to file a bond
for the obvious reason that it is capable of paying its obligation. Sps. Badillo vs. Hon. Tayag, G.R.
No. 143976. April 3, 2003

At what point in the litigation should superseades bond be filed?

As a general rule, a judgment in favor of the plaintiff in an ejectment suit is immediately

executory, in order to prevent further damage to him arising from the loss of possession of the
property in question. To stay the immediate execution of the said judgment while the appeal is
pending, the foregoing provision requires that the following requisites must concur: (1)
the defendant perfects his appeal; (2) he files a supersedeas bond; and (3) he periodically deposits
the rentals which become due during the pendency of the appeal. The failure of
the defendant to comply with any of these conditions is a ground for the outright execution of the
judgment, the duty of the court in this respect being ministerial and imperative. Hence, if
the defendant-appellant perfected the appeal but failed to file a supersedeas bond, the immediate
execution of the judgment would automatically follow. Conversely, the filing of a supersedeas
bond will not stay the execution of the judgment if the appeal is not perfected. Necessarily then,
the supersedeas bond should be filed within the period for the perfection of the appeal. Sps.
Marciano Chua and Chua Cho, G.R. No. 113886. February 24, 1998

What is considered material for purposes of staying execution pending appeal under Rule 70 is
not only the fact of payment but, more importantly, the timeliness of the filing of the supersedeas
bond. The bond should have been filed forthwith after the municipal trial court had rendered
judgment against complainants, which judgment was immediately executory, without prejudice
to the right of appeal.

It will be observed that no supersedeas bond was filed after the rendition of the decision either in
the court of origin or in the appellate court. The requirement for the filing of a supersedeas bond
is mandatory. Defendants in the ejectment case appealed to the latter court without filing a
supersedeas bond. Such failure is a ground for outright execution of the judgment of the
municipal trial court, the duty of the appellate court to order the execution of the appealed
decision being thereby ministerial and imperative. Cordova vs. Labayen, A.M. No. RTJ-93-1033,
October 10, 1995

In this case, the appellate court held that petitioners failure to perfect the appeal and to file a
supersedeas bond warranted the immediate execution of the MeTC judgment. However, a review
of the records reveals that even before petitioners had the opportunity to perfect their appeal
and file a supersedeas bond, the writ of execution had already been issued. Petitioners received
the MeTC Decision on October 13, 1997; thus, they had until October 28, 1997 to perfect their
appeal. Petitioners Notice of Appeal filed on October 13, 1997 should have cautioned the trial
court to await the expiration of the reglementary period for filing an appeal before issuing the
questioned writ. However, the writ of execution was issued as early as October 20, 1997.

Public policy dictates that ejectment cases must be resolved with the least possible delay, and
judgments rendered in favor of plaintiff be immediately executed. However, the rules of
procedure prescribe trial courts to strike a balance between the plaintiffs and defendants right to
relief. SC directed the Municipal Trial Court to give due course to the appeal and approvethe
amount of supersedeas bond. The Writ of Execution was set aside. Republic vs. Sps. Luriz, G.R.
No. 158992, January 26, 2007

Where is the supersedeas bond filed?

The bond should be filed before the MTC or, where the records have been forwarded to the RTC,
before the latter court. In either case, it should be done during the period of appeal. Sps. Marciano
Chua and Chua Cho, G.R. No. 113886. February 24, 1998

What is the effect of failure to post a superseades bond?

The foregoing rule provides that a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs shall be immediately
executory. It can be stayed by the defendant only by perfecting an appeal, filing a supersedeas
bond, and making a periodic deposit of the rental or the reasonable compensation for the use and
occupancy of the property during the pendency of the appeal. These requisites are mandatory
and concurrent. Thus, if not complied with, execution will issue as a matter of right. Republic vs.
Sps. Luriz, G.R. No. 158992, January 26, 2007