G.R. No. 237871 -

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby modified as follows[:] (1) ordering the cancellation of T.C.T. No. NT-12647 in the name of [Lucena], and the issuance of a new title covering the land described in the complaint in favor of all the legal heirs of [Spouses Ramos], namely Lucena; Leonardo; Virgilio; Teodorico; Aurora (sic) Virginia; Rodolfo; Rosalia and Rosita, all surnamed Ramos; (2) ordering the partition of the property aforesaid among the above-mentioned heirs in the proportion of 1/9 each; (3) sentencing cross-defendant [Lucena] to pay cross-complainant [Tomas] the sum of P8,800.00 with legal interest thereon from August 15, 1955 until fully paid, and as security for the payment of such amounts the appertaining to Lucena; Leonardo; Virgilio and Teodorico, surnamed Ramos, shall be subject, among others, to the lien of equitable mortgage in favor of [Tomas]. Costs are against defendant [Lucena]." On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Decision dated January 25, 1961 in Civil Case No. 2146 and the same became final and executory on February 18, 1961 as per Entry of Judgment docketed as CA-G.R. No. 20833-R. [The respondents then alleged that as a consequence of the final and executory Decision in Civil Case No. 2146, the subject property was subdivided by and among the heirs of the spouses Ramos, who are in open, continuous, exclusive, adverse, and notorious possession in the concept of owners.] [4] Sometime in 1993, [the petitioners Fernandos] learned of the Decision dated January 25, 1961 in Civil Case No. 2146 which is embodied in the Entry of Judgment dated February 18, 1961 issued by the Court of Appeals. Thus, [petitioner] Margarita went to the residence of spouses [Lucena] and [Alfredo] to demand that the latter comply with the said Decision. [An alleged] verbal agreement was entered into between the [petitioners] Fernandos and spouses [Lucena] and [Alfredo] wherein the latter were given more time to pay or surrender the title of the subject property to the [petitioners] Fernandos. During this time, the spouses [Lucena] and [Alfredo] were in possession of the 2-hectare portion of the subject property while [one] Vicente Tobias was in possession of the remaining 1 hectare. Four years thereafter or sometime in 1997, the [petitioners] Fernandos again demanded that the spouses [Lucena] and [Alfredo] comply with their verbal agreement. However, the spouses refused to pay nor surrender the title of the subject property to the [petitioners] Fernandos. Hence, on May 8, 1997, [the petitioners Fernandos] filed a complaint for specific performance and damages [to enforce the oral agreement covering the entire subject property] against [the] spouses [Lucena] and [Alfredo] before the [Regional Trial Court of Baloc, Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija, Branch 37 (RTC)] which was docketed as Civil Case No. 31-SD(97) . The [petitioners Fernandos] alleged that sometime in 1993, spouses [Lucena] and [Alfredo] entered into an [oral] agreement with t