G.R. No. 234429 - SPOUSES FELIPE PARINGIT AND JOSEFA PARINGIT, VS. MARCIANA PARINGIT BAJIT, ADOLIO PARINGIT,* AND ROSARIO PARINGIT ORDOÑO.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , the Court DENIES the petition, and AFFIRMS the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV 84792 with the MODIFICATION that respondents Marciana Paringit Bajit, Adolio Paringit, and Rosario Paringit Ordoño reimburse petitioners Felipe and Josefa Paringit of their corresponding share in the purchase price plus expenses advanced by petitioners amounting to P60,000.00 with legal interest from April 12, 1984 until fully paid. SO ORDERED . Following the finality of the aforesaid decision, the trial court issued the corresponding Writ of Execution. [7] Even after the lapse of nine (9) years, however, the writ of execution has remained unimplemented mainly because of the multiple motions filed by petitioners, which the trial court had invariably denied. One of the last two (2) issuances of the trial court was the Order dated January 14, 2014, [8] viz : xxx xxx xxx As to the defendants' Manifestation, the Court cannot grant defendants' prayer that the deed of reconveyance should be limited only to 110 square meters and not 150 square meters considering that the Supreme Court Decision dated September 29, 2010 did not qualify as to the extent of the measurement of the subject property to be reconveyed to the plaintiffs upon reimbursement of their share in the purchase price of the subject property. Hence, in the absence of any qualification, the Court assumes that the deed of reconveyance covers the plaintiffs' proportionate share on the whole subject property (150 square meters) pursuant to the Supreme Court Decision dated September 29, 2010. [9] xxx xxx xxx Then the trial court issued its last directive under Order dated June 26, 2015, [10] granting respondents' Motion (for the Appointment of Surveyor with Prayer for Police Assistance from the Manila Police District and from the Barangay concerned). [11] The trial court reiterated the need to segregate respondents' 90 square meter share from the entire 150 square meter lot. But still insisting on the reconveyance to respondents of just 110 square meters, petitioners moved for reconsideration of the Order dated June 26, 2015. The trial court denied it. [12] Imputing grave abuse of discretion on the trial court, petitioners went to the Court of Appeals to nullify the aforesaid orders for allegedly altering this Court's final and executory Decision dated September 29, 2010 in G.R. No. 181844. [13] By its assailed Decision dated May 5, 2017, [14] the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition. It held that contrary to petitioners' contention, the trial court did not vary the terms of this Court's Decision dated September 29, 2010, but in fact, effected a sound and logical implementation of the same. Under its assailed Resolution dated September 27, 2017, [15] the Court of Appeals denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration. The Present Petition Petitioners now invoke this Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction to grant them affirmative relief against the assailed dispositions of the Cour