G.R. No. 193000 - SPOUSES FELIPE AND EVELYN SARMIENTO AND SPOUSES GREG AND FELIZA AMARILLO., VS. SPOUSES RODOLFO AND CARMELITA MAGSINO.R E S O L U T I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly, issued a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction restoring the latter to the possession of two parcels of land with improvements located at Pacita Complex 1, San Pedro, Laguna, which were originally covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) Nos. T-25674 [5] and T-25674 [6] and later by TCT Nos. T-6702935 and T-6702946 (subject properties), upon the posting of a bond, jointly and severally, in the amount of P400,000.00. Assailed as well is the Court of Appeals Resolution [7] dated 29 June 2010 denying respondent spouses Motion for Reconsideration. The facts of the case are as follows: Initially, respondent spouses filed a Complaint for Specific Performance and Damages (with application for writ of preliminary attachment) [8] against Leopoldo and Elvira Calderon (spouses Calderon) before the RTC of San Pedro, Laguna, Branch 93 (RTC Branch 93), docketed as Civil Case No. SPL-0499 . In that Complaint, respondent spouses prayed, among others, that judgment be rendered ordering spouses Calderon to deliver the owners duplicate copy of TCT Nos. T-256745 and T-256746 covering the subject properties and to execute a Deed of Absolute Sale over the said properties in their favor. In the alternative, respondent spouses prayed that spouses Calderon be ordered to reimburse the amount of P383,013.70 plus 12% interest per annum and the costs of suit should the execution of a Deed of Absolute Sale over the subject properties become legally impossible. [9] On 17 December 2002, RTC Branch 93 rendered a Decision granting the alternative relief prayed for by respondent spouses , thus, ordering spouses Calderon, among others, to jointly and severally reimburse the sum of P383,013.70 plus 12% interest per annum from the filing of the Complaint until fully paid. [10] RTC Branch 93 explained its ruling in this wise: x x x Records further reveal that [spouses Calderon] had in fact sold the [subject properties] to [herein petitioners] considering that [spouses Calderon are] no longer interested in selling the [subject properties] to [herein respondent spouses]. x x x [spouses Calderon] failed to comply with their obligation giving the option to [respondent spouses] to demand between the fulfillment of the obligation or the rescission of the obligation with payment of damages in either case. In the instant case, f ulfillment of the obligation had become impossible considering that [spouses Calderon] had sold the [subject properties] to third persons . [11] The Court therefore grants the alternative relief prayed for by [respondent spouses] x x x. [12] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied). The aforesaid RTC Branch 93 Decision had become final and executory. Respondent spouses, thus, moved for its execution, which was granted in an Order dated 5 January 2004 [13] and the corresponding writ of execution [14] was thereafter issued on 15 March 2004. In view of this, the Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff of San Pedro, Laguna enforced the writ by levying th