FACTS:

The petition for Mandamus involves consolidated ejectment cases where the Metropolitan and Regional Trial Courts rendered a decision in favor of the petitioners. Three of the cases were appealed and assigned to Branch 101 of the Quezon City Regional Trial Court, presided by the respondent Judge. The Judge affirmed in toto the decision of the lower court. Petitioners filed a Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution Pending Appeal, which was opposed by the private respondents. Private respondents also filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals. The respondent Judge denied petitioners' motion for execution pending appeal, citing that private respondents have complied with the requirements to stay immediate execution of judgment. Petitioners argue that the rule on execution pending appeal has been repealed and that Regional Trial Court decisions on appealed ejectment cases cannot be stayed. Petitioners filed a Petition for Mandamus seeking the issuance of a writ of execution pending appeal, contending that it is the ministerial duty of the Regional Trial Court to execute its decision immediately. The issue of whether or not decisions of Regional Trial Courts in appealed ejectment cases pending appeal with the Court of Appeals are immediately executory and cannot be stayed has been addressed in the recent case of Northcastle Properties & Estate Corp. v. Judge Paas.

ISSUES:

RULING:

PRINCIPLES:

• Regional Trial Courts have the ministerial duty to immediately execute their decisions in ejectment cases.

• Rule 70, Section 19 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows the stay of execution of judgment pending appeal, only applies to ejectment cases pending appeal with the Regional Trial Court.

• Rule 70, Section 21 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure provides that decisions of the Regional Trial Court in ejectment cases are immediately executory.