On September 23, 1996, the RTC decreeing among others the legal separation between petitioner and respondent on the ground of the latter’s sexual infidelity; the dissolution of their conjugal property relations and the division of the net conjugal assets; the forfeiture of respondent’s one-half share in the net conjugal assets in favor of the common children; the payment to petitioner’s counsel of the sum of ₱100,000 as attorney’s fees to be taken from petitioner’s share in the net assets; and the surrender by respondent of the use and possession of a motor vehicle and the smaller residential house to petitioner and the common children within 15 days from receipt of the decision. Petitioner filed a motion for execution pending appeal. Respondent Gabriel Bañez filed a consolidated written opposition to the motions, and also prayed for the reconsideration. The petitioner’s motion for execution of decision pending appeal was granted by the RTC. Consequently, let a writ of execution be issued in this case to enforce the decision for (1) respondent to vacate the premises of the small residential house and for (2) respondent to surrender the use and possession of said Mazda motor vehicle together with its keys and accessories thereof to petitioner.
On appeal by the Respondent, the CA ordered set aside the writ of execution issued by the RTC. Petitioner moved for the reconsideration of the said order but was denied by the CA. hence this case.
Whether the CA erred in setting aside the Writ of Execution Pending Appeal of the RTC.
No, execution pending appeal is allowed when superior circumstances demanding urgency outweigh the damages that may result from the issuance of the writ. Otherwise, instead of being an instrument of solicitude and justice, the writ may well become a tool of oppression and inequity.
In this case, considering the reasons cited by petitioner, we are of the view that there is no superior or urgent circumstance that outweighs the damage which respondent would suffer if he were ordered to vacate the house. We note that petitioner did not refute respondent’s allegations that she did not intend to use said house, and that she has two (2) other houses in the United States where she is a permanent resident, while he had none at all. Merely putting up a bond is not sufficient reason to justify her plea for execution pending appeal. To do so would make execution routinary, the rule rather than the exception.