, VS. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS FORMER SPECIAL EIGHTEENTH (18

Ruling

accordingly, directed the issuance of a writ of execution. The City did not move for the reconsideration of this Order. [40] Thus, a writ of execution was issued and implemented by the Sheriff, resulting in the garnishment of the City's deposit accounts in the Philippine Postal Savings Bank, Inc., the Philippine Veterans Bank, and the Land Bank of the Philippines, and receivables from SM Prime Holdings, Inc. and Filinvest Land from the sale of some patrimonial real properties. [41] Alleged discovery of a convenio The City filed motions to quash the writ of execution and set aside the notice of garnishment based on a convenio allegedly executed in 1940, with a stipulation pour autrui , bestowing ownership of the subject lots in its favor. These motions were denied by the RTC in the Order, [42] dated October 26, 2011. It found that the alleged newly discovered convenio is not a supervening event which transpired after the judgment in the instant case had become final and executory. The RTC explained that the convenio was already in existence in 1940 and bears the judicial imprimatur of the Court of First Instance for the Province of Cebu, but was not brought to light by the City while the case was still in the process of litigation. [43] The City moved for reconsideration, but the same was denied in the Order, [44] dated January 26, 2012. In the Order, [45] dated February 27, 2012, the RTC: ( a ) required garnishees Philippine Veterans Bank and Philippine Postal Savings Bank, Inc. to release a certification to the Sheriff stating the actual account numbers under the name of the City to cater to the final judgment in favor of the petitioners; ( b ) directed the petitioners to demand of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of the City to enact an appropriation ordinance; and ( c ) ordered the said banks to release the amount for the satisfaction of the judgment upon enactment of the appropriation ordinance. [46] The City filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Order, dated February 27, 2012. Without waiting for the resolution of the same, it filed a Petition (for Annulment of Final Decisions and Orders) ( Petition for Annulment ), [47] before the CA, seeking to annul the Expropriation and Just Compensation Decisions and the Modified Award. It also sought the issuance of temporary restraining order ( TRO ) and/or writ of preliminary injunction ( WPI ) to prevent the release of funds pursuant to the above Order. The Petition for Annulment is grounded on the convenio , which the City claims to have been fraudulently concealed by the petitioners. [48] The CA granted the City's prayer for a TRO and summoned the petitioners. In response thereto, on May 4, 2012, the petitioners moved for the dismissal of the Petition for Annulment ( Motion to Dismiss ) and lifting of the TRO and concomitantly filed an ad cautelam Answer. [49] On June 26, 2012, the CA issued a Resolution for the issuance of a WPI, enjoining the execution of the Expropriation and Just Compensation De