SPS. FELIPE PARINGIT AND JOSEFA PARINGIT v. MARCIANA PARINGIT BAJIT [Case Digest]

 

SPS. FELIPE PARINGIT AND JOSEFA PARINGIT v. MARCIANA PARINGIT BAJIT

GR No. 234429, July 10, 2019

LAZARO-JAVIER, J., Second Division

 

Subject:

Civil Law

 

Facts:

                 Respondents Marciana Paringit Bajit, Adolio Paringit, and Rosario Paringit Ordofio sued their brother and his wife herein petitioners Spouses Felipe and Josefa Paringit, for annulment of title and reconveyance of property.

                Respondents essentially alleged that the case involved a 150 square meter lot situated in Manila and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 172313 in petitioners' name. Before the lot was registered in petitioners' name, their parents Julian and Aurelia Paringit used to lease it from Terocel Realty, Inc .. It was their family home. When Terocel offered to sell the lot to their parents, the latter sought financial help from their children. Only petitioners were able to give financial assistance for this purpose. Their father Julian then executed an affidavit declaring that the lot was purchased for the benefit of all his children, namely, Florencio, Marciana, Adolio, Rosario, and Felipe, subject to the condition that the first four aforenamed siblings reimburse Felipe their respective shares in the purchase price.

                From the time their parents bought the property (January 30, 1984) they and petitioners had since resided thereon. In 1988, petitioners moved to another house along the same street. After their father died on December 21, 1994, however, petitioners demanded that they pay back rentals for their use and occupancy of the property from March 1990 to December 1995.

                Trial court ruled in petitioners' favor and dismissed the complaint. Court of Appeals reversed. It held that there was implied trust between petitioners, on one hand, and respondents, on the other. It ordered petitioners to reconvey to respondents (including Florencio, who was not a party to the case) their proportionate shares in the lot upon reimbursement to petitioners of respondents' shares in the purchase price plus legal interest.

                Following the finality of the aforesaid decision, the trial court issued the corresponding Writ of Execution. 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, viz: 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.

                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.  Puting 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. 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.  CA denied the M.R.

 

Issue:

                Did the Court of Appeals correctly rule that when the trial court pronounced there was a need to segregate the 90 square meters from the 150 square meters lot, it actually conformed with the terms of this Court's Decision dated September 29, 2010?

 

Held:

                Yes; when the trial court specified the entire 150 square meters to be distributed among the five (5) siblings, Florencio, Felipe, Marciana, Adolio, and Rosario, each to get 30 square meters, the trial court computed the numbers correctly. And when the trial court said that the respective shares of respondents Marciana, Adolio, and Rosario totaled 90 square meters, or 30 square meters each, it again computed the numbers correctly.

                A final word. This Court keenly notes the propensity of petitioners and their counsel for devising various ways and means of delaying for almost nine (9) years now the implementation of its Decision dated September 29, 2010. This is contumacious disobedience. To borrow the words of Justice Conrado V. Sanchez, non-compliance with the lower court's order is no more than non-recognition of this Court's directive. Petitioners must know that this Court is not expected to yield to assaults of disrespect.