● 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 (or the reasonable value of the use and occupation of the
premises).

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.

In short, a judgment in favor of the plaintiff in an ejectment suit is immediately

executory, but the defendant, to stay its immediate execution, must: (1) perfect an
appeal; (2) file a supersede s bond; and (3) periodically deposit the rentals
becoming due during the pendency of the appeal. (Acbang vs. Luczon, G.R. No.
164246, January 15, 2014)

● The periodic deposits are designed to cover all rentals from the judgment of the
MTC until the final judgment of the appellate court. Thus, even if an appeal has
been perfected but the required periodic deposits are not made, execution may be
obtained upon proper motion with notice despite the posting of a supersedeas bond
because said bond covers only back rentals declared in the judgment of the
Municipal Trial Court. The bond does not answer for rentals that accrue during the
appeal process.
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?

No. 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)

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)
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 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)

Where should the supersedeas bond be 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)

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.

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. 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)