REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

7th Judicial Region

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 55
Mandaue City

DAVID LIVINGSTONE MISSIONARY

FOUNDATION PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

-versus- Civil Case No. MAN-6169-R

Civil Case No. 649-R

LIVINGSTONE CHRISTIAN ACADEMY

Defendant-Appellant.

x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR

ISSUANCE OFWRIT OF EXECUTION AND FOR
WITHDRAWAL OF CASH DEPOSIT

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, thru counsel unto the Honorable Court,

respectfully moves to oppose the issuance of the writ of execution and
withdrawal of cash deposit dated January 25, 2010 and in support thereof
avers that:

1. On December 17, 2009, the Honorable Court rendered its

decision affirming en toto the decision of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court
of Liloan-Compostela in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant.

2. It is true that Section 21, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court provides

that the judgment of the Regional Trial Court against the defendant shall be
immediately executory, without prejudice to a further appeal that may be
taken therefrom. However, the Court ruled in Benedicto v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 157604, October 19, 2005, that:
 On appeal the appellate court may stay the said
writ should circumstances so require. x x x even
if RTC judgments in unlawful detainer cases are
immediately executory, preliminary injunction may
still be granted. (emphasis ours)

3. Furthermore, it is worthy to note that in Laurel v. Abalos, 140

Phil. 532, the Court stressed that:

Where supervening events (occurring subsequent to

the judgment) bring about a material change in the
situation of the parties which makes the execution
inequitable, or where there is no compelling
urgency for the execution because it is not
justified by the prevailing circumstances, the
court may stay immediate execution of the
judgment. (emphasis ours)

4. Based on the foregoing earlier ruling in Laurel, the Court also

deemed it just and equitable to stay the execution of the RTC judgment in an
ejectment case against the City of Naga, in City of Naga v. Asuncion, G.R.
No. 174042, July 9, 2008, to wit:

Needless to reiterate, grave and irreparable injury

will be inflicted on the City of Naga by the
immediate execution of the June 20, 2005 RTC
Decision. x x x the people of Naga would be
deprived of access to basic social services. It should
not be forgotten that the land subject of the ejectment
case houses government offices which perform
important functions vital to the orderly operation of
the local government. x x x (emphasis ours)

5. In the case at bar, the issuance of the writ applied for will bring
about serious, disastrous and irreparable damage, not only to the Defendant,
but of equal importance, to the very orphans whom the Plaintiff itself claims
to advocate as well as to the paying students or pupils. Asking the Defendant
to vacate the premises is in effect dislocating the students and their classes.
Unnecessary disruption of schools scheduled activities will be to the
students detriments. The orphans and paying students or pupils will be
deprived of a school within the orphanage itself and will be compelled to go
to public schools, the nearest of which is a 45-minute walk from the
orphanage. Hence, there is no compelling urgency for the execution because it
is not justified by the prevailing circumstances.

WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed of the Honorable Court

to DENY the motion for issuance of the writ of execution and withdrawal of
cash deposit. Other relief, just and equitable, are likewise prayed for.

Cebu City, for Mandaue City, January 28, 2010.

MIGUEL SAMUEL AQUILES E. DURAN

PTR NO. 3612333/01-04-08/Cebu City
IBP NO. 732289/01-04-08/Cebu
Roll No. 52686
Room 204, CRM Building
Escario cor. Molave Sts., Lahug
6000 Cebu City
Philippines