\i

f'rg

Case: The plaintiff, Faustino Lichauco, filed two actions of unlawful detainer to recover possession o[ certain properties located :t l.ianila. T1:: iricl ccr^t JcaCcd in favor oi the plaintiff. Tlre
unsuccessful defendants having appealed in both cases oo December S, igZA to the Court of First Instance of Manila, it became their duty, in conformity with the provisions oF Section 88 of the C.C.P., as amended by Act No. 2J88,.in case they desire to avoid the immediate execution of the ludgment pending the appeal, to Pa)' the plaintiff, or to deposit in court, "on-or be{ore the tenth day of each calendar month," the sums of money fixed by the Justice of the

49

to make payments on or before the tenth day of the month then current. The court ordered the immediate xecution of the judgment. The present petition seeks relief from said order' It is contended that the date from which the computxxion begins should be taken to be December 9, and the sevcrai succeeding months would have expired on or about Jnnuary'8, Fcbrulry 7, April 8, lvlay 8, etc., and so if petirioner hrd ten days there,rfterwithin which to rnake payments, their obligarion was in c,rch instance absolved. l-leld: The pryment eifected on i\ugus! 11, 1921 rvas one d:ry late. The ternr "montl:" lnust tlo!, Ue understood to refer to ciendar month, inasmuch as Section ':.iJ. of the Adminisr"tiv. , -. .,.::,,''l'-' Code has modified Article 7 of the Civil Code in so far ns the i-'r a latter fixes the length of r month at thirty days. (Gilzman us. Lichuco, 42 Phil. 291).

Peace as the reasonable value of the use and occupation of the property held by them. Defendants rnade such payments each month, that is to say, February 14, March 18, April 11, May, 10, July 11, August 11. Considering these payments to be merely dilatory, plaintiff on August 16, 1921, moved the Court of Fint Instance to execute the judgments, for failure of the defendants

'