G.R. No. 127206 - PERLA PALMA GIL, VICENTE HIZON, JR., AND ANGEL PALMA GIL, VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HEIRS OF EMILIO MATULAC, CONSTANCIO MAGLANA, AGAPITO PACETES & THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF DAVAO CITY.

Ruling

Accordingly, the instant appeal is dismissed and the resolution of the Court of Appeals dated July 31, 1967 and its resolution dated October 18, 1967 are affirmed. [12] The decision of the Court became final and executory. On May 5, 1975, the spouses Agapito and Iluminada Pacetes filed a complaint against Nieves in the Court of First Instance of Davao City, docketed as Civil Case No. 8836 for the recovery of possession of Lot 59-C-1 and Lot 59-C-2. The Pacetes spouses claimed that Lot 59-C-2 was included in TCT No. 7450 under the name of Concepcion. The spouses prayed that judgment be rendered in their favor after due proceedings thus: PRAYER PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is most respectfully prayed that: During the pendency of this case, Defendant be ordered: To refrain from collecting rentals from the tenants or occupants of the building erected in said Lot 59-C-1; in that the tenants be directed to pay their rental to the plaintiff; To demolish her aforesaid building of strong materials and vacate the premises of Lot 59-C-1 and Lot 59-C-2. After hearing, Defendant be ordered to: Pay the Plaintiffs the amount consisting of compensation for the use of the land they have been depribed (sic) of to receive and enjoy since October 24, 1956 due to the unwarranted and illegal occupation of the said lots by defendant; Pay Plaintiffs moral and exemplary damages in such amount as the Honorable Court may fix considering the facts and the law; Pay Plaintiffs such expenses of litigation as may be proven during the trial, and Pay Plaintiffs expenses for services of counsel they had to incurr (sic) in this complaint. OTHER RELIEFS consonant with justice and equity are prayed for. [13] On May 10, 1977, Nieves Villarica executed a lease agreement with Virginia Jorge and Anita Vergara over Lots 59-C-1 and 59-C-2. The lessees took actual possession of the leased property. In their Answer to the complaint in Civil Case No. 8836, the defendants averred, by way of defense, that the complaint was barred by the decision of the CFI in Civil Case No. 4413, which ruled that the Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Concepcion in favor of Iluminada was merely an executory, but not an executed contract. After the plaintiffs had rested their case, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss (demurrer to evidence). On October 29, 1975, the court issued an order dismissing the complaint on the ground that the action was barred by the decision of the court in Civil Case No. 4413. [14] Thus, Virginia Jorge and Anita Vergara continued to be in physical possession of the property. In the meantime, on August 8, 1977, Iluminada consigned with the court in Civil Case No. 1160 the amount of P11,983.00 only as payment of the purchase price of the property. Iluminada was issued receipts for the amount. [15] As successor-in-interest of Concepcion, she likewise filed a motion for execution in Civil Case No. 1160 for the eviction of the defendant Nieves Villarica and all those acting for and in her be