Banez v.

Banez
374 SCRA
Facts:
The RTC of Cebu decreed legal separation between Aida and Respondent Gabriel on the ground of
Sexual Infedelity. Dissolution of conjugal property and division of net conjugal assets forfeiture of
Gabriel’s half share in the net assets in favor of common children; payment of 100,000 as attorney’s fees
and surrender of a Mazda car and small residential house to petitioner and common children 15 days from
receipt of decision was also decreed by the same court. Respondent appealed.
Aida filed a motion for execution pending appeal. The RTC gave due course to execution pending appeal
and issued a writ of execution commanding the sheriff to order the respondent to vacate the house and
surrender the Mazda car. It also ordered the petitioner to post bond to answer for all damages that
respondents may suffer.
The CA set aside the judgment.
Upon motion, Aida prayed that she and her children be allowed to occupy the house for she did not have
the chance to occupy it and besides, she posted a bond for damages that respondent may suffer.
Respondent on the other hand argued that Aida chose not to live in the house for she owned two houses in
the United States where she resides.
Issue:
Whether the execution pending appeal is justified.
Held:
Execution pending appeal is allowed when superior circumstances demanding urgency outweigh the
damages that may result from issuance of writ. Otherwise, the writ may become a tool of oppression and
inequity.
In this case, considering the reason cited of Aida, there is no superior or urgent circumstances that
outweigh the damages which the respondent would suffer if he were ordered to vacate the house. She did
not refute the respondent’s allegations that she did not intend to use the house for she owned two houses
in the US where she resides. Merely, putting up a bond is not sufficient to justify her plea for execution
pending appeal.

Page 1 of 1