G.R. No. 113235 - VICTORINA MEDINA, VIRGINIA VINUYA, ANSELMO YABOT AND SALVACION MENDOZA, VS. CITY SHERIFF, MANILA AND SPOUSES JUSTINO V. JIMENEZ AND AURORA RUEDA JIMENEZ.R E S O L U T I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered against the defendants and in favor of the plaintiffs, ordering the defendants to vacate the premises being occupied by them under TCT No. 194409 of plaintiffs, including all persons claiming rights and title under them. Defendants are also ordered, jointly and severally, to pay the plaintiffs the amount of P15,000.00 as attorneys fees and expenses of litigation, as well as the costs of this suit. [2] Unknown to petitioners, the spouses Jimenez had earlier sold the subject property to Ernesto and Rose Concepcion for P450,000.00 on October 14, 1990. After the above-mentioned ejectment case was initiated against petitioners, private respondents Jimenez commenced a complaint in the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 8 for annulment of the deed of sale they had executed in favor of the spouses Concepcion. [3] On March 12, 1992, the court dismissed the complaint for lack of merit and ordered the plaintiffs Jimenez to pay liquidated damages and litigation expenses, as well as attorneys fees amounting to P50,000.00 and P30,000.00, respectively. [4] Respondent appellate court dismissed the appeal filed by the Jimenezes due to the late filing of the appellants brief. [5] Petitioners allege that they were not aware of the conveyance to the Concepcions and the legal battle between the latter and the Jimenez spouses until after private respondents Jimenez moved for the issuance of a writ of execution in the ejectment case. Petitioners filed their opposition to said motion on the ground of the supervening event of private respondents loss of ownership over the property. The Metropolitan Trial Court, through Judge Reinato G. Quilala, granted the motion for execution and issued the assailed writ on April 27, 1993. [6] Petitioners resorted to filing a case for Damages with Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 22. [7] After the lower court denied petitioners application for the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction, [8] they proceeded to file a petition for prohibition and certiorari with preliminary injunction and/or restraining order in the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 31337. [9] On December 15, 1993, respondent court rendered the questioned Resolution denying petitioners motion for issuance of preliminary injunction, which reads: Acting on the petitioners Motion for Issuance of Preliminary Injunction dated December 7, 1993 after having gone over the petition and comment thereto with their respective annexes, We find no factual and legal basis to warrant issuance of a preliminary injunction. WHEREFORE, the petitioners motion is DENIED and the main case is now deemed submitted for decision. [10] Consequently, a Sheriffs Notice to Demolish and Vacate was issued on January 10, 1994. [11] Hence, the instant petition for certiorari. In a Resolution of this Court dated February 2, 1994, private respondents herein wer