JAIME PELEJO AND BELEN C. ZABALLERO, PETITIONERS, VS. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, PATERNO C. ZABALLERO AND AURORA GONZALES, RESPONDENTS.

In Our decision which was promulgated on August 31, 1982, We
stated the following:

“On July 3, 1979,
herein petitioners filed Civil Case No. 124771 for Annulment of Deed, Title,
Reconveyance and Damages.  According to
petitioners, respondents Paterno C. Zaballero and his wife Aurora Gonzales
Zaballero approached them sometime in 1974 for assistance.  They borrowed the title TCT No. T-49125,
covering the property so that they could have a collateral
for a loan from the Monte de Piedad Bank, the proceeds of which would finance
respondents’ rice mill business in San Juan,
Batangas.  To accommodate herein private
respondents, who are the brother and sister-in-law, respectively, of petitioner
Belen C. Zaballero, a simulated Deed of Absolute Sale with Assumption of
Mortgage was executed in favor of Mr. and Mrs. Paterno C. Zaballero.  The Zaballeros took the Deed of Sale to mean
what it stated and had the title transferred to their names.  As a consequence, TCT No.
T-49125 was cancelled and TCT No. 130117 was issued in the names of the
Zaballeros.

“In their answer to the complaint, respondents denied the
allegations of simulated sale and claimed that the Deed of Absolute Sale was
properly executed in good faith before a notary public of the Philippine
National Bank; that the P400,000.00 stated in the deed was paid to herein
petitioners while the P200,000.00 PNB Mortgage was eventually paid to the bank;
that the P600,000.00 was a fair price for the properties in 1974 when the
conveyance was executed; that petitioner Belen Zaballero, an older sister of
respondent Paterno Zaballero, now regrets having sold
the property for only P600,000.00 because a relative volunteered to help her
negotiate a one-million peso loan on the property as collateral.

“On August 22, 1980,
the trial court issued an order dismissing the complaint but allowing the
petitioners to file an amended complaint within ten (10) days.  The original complaint was dismissed upon
motion of the private respondents on the ground that it did not state a cause
of action, and assuming there was a cause of action, it was already barred by
statute.  The petitioners filed their
amended complaint after September 18,
1980 which was beyond the ten-day period.

“On October 14, 1980,
the trial judge denied the admission of the amended complaint in an order which
reads:

‘Acting on the Motion to Admit Amended Complaint as well as the
opposition thereto, and it appearing that said amendment is studiedly not in
accordance with what the parties have agreed upon in open Court, which is
inimitably for collection of a Sum of Money, the same should be, as it is
hereby, DENIED.’

“This order dismissing the complaint in Civil Case No. 124771
was not appealed or otherwise elevated to an appellate court.  Instead, petitioners filed a new complaint
for ‘Annulment of Deed, Title, Reconveyance and Damages’ which was docketed as
Civil Case No. 140996 and assigned to another branch of the Manila Court of
First Instance.

“On September 9, 1981,
Judge Fidel P. Purisima of Branch XX dismissed the new case (Civil Case No.
140996) on the ground that the dismissal of Civil Case No. 124771 and the
subsequent denial of the Motion to Admit Complaint amounted to res judicata
barring the new complaint.

“The dismissal of the second case (Civil Case No. 140996) was
appealed to the Court of Appeals where it is still pending resolution.

“In the meantime, respondents Paterno Zaballero and Aurora
Gonzales Zaballero filed Civil Case No. 144435, captioned ‘Accion
Reinvindicatoria or Publiciana, with Collection and Damages,’ but the same was
dismissed by Court of First Instance Judge Maximo A. Maceren on February 4,
1982 on the ground that it was actually an action for illegal detainer which is
not within the jurisdiction of his court.

“The dismissal of said Civil Case No. 144435 was appealed by
private respondents to this Court where it is still pending action.

“Thereafter, herein private respondents filed a motion for the
issuance of a Writ of Possession in Civil Case No. 124771.  On March 30, 1982, Judge Abelardo Dayrit of
the Court of First Instance granted the motion and issued a Writ of Possession
‘ordering the Sheriff of the City of Manila to place in possession the herein
defendants Paterno C. Zaballero and Aurora Gonzales Zaballero, in the premises
at 541 M.V. delos Santos Street, Sampaloc, Manila, and eject therefrom the
herein plaintiffs Jaime Pelejo and Belen Zaballero Pelejo, and all persons
claiming under said plaintiffs.'”

As a consequence, on April
6, 1982, the possession of the property in question was turned over
to herein respondents when the City Sheriff of Manila enforced the writ of
possession, dated March 30, 1982,
issued in Civil Case No. 124771.

In Our decision, dated August
31, 1982, We found merit in instant
petition because the order of the lower court dated August 22, 1980, was a dismissal of the complaint
(Civil Case No. 124771) on the grounds alleged in defendants’ motion to
dismiss.  However, on grounds of justice
and equity, We set aside this decision based on the
following grounds:

1. The writ of possession has already been implemented;

2. In the complaint filed by herein petitioners (Civil Case No.
124771 for Annulment of Deed, Title, Reconveyance and Damages) they admitted
that subject property is now covered by TCT No. T-130117 in the
names of private respondents, spouses Paterno C. Zaballero and Aurora Gonzales.  Likewise, the Court of Appeals, in its
decision, dated April 29, 1982,
stated that “the lot and buildings are now covered by TCT #130117 in the
names of the respondents.”

3. A mandatory injunction is granted only on a showing that (a)
the invasion of the right is material and substantial; (b) the right of
complainant is clear and unmistakable; and (c) there is an urgent and permanent
necessity for the writ to prevent serious damages.  Petitioners’ right over the property is not
clear.  As stated above, the title to the
property in question is already in the names of private respondents who,
therefore, have better right to the possession thereof.

4. The procedural error incurred by private respondents in not
asking for affirmative relief in the dispositive portion of the lower court’s
order dismissing the case and which led to the dispute surrounding the
propriety of the issuance of the writ of possession is a mere technicality
which would not prevail over considerations of substantial justice.  There is no point in prolonging the
litigation when private respondents are the owners of the property and
therefore are entitled to its possession. 
It would be an injustice to allow petitioners to continue holding
subject property.

ACCORDINGLY, We reconsider and
set aside Our decision dated August
31, 1982 and hereby DISMISS instant petition.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, (Chairman), Plana, and
Vasquez, JJ., concur.

Melencio-Herrera, J., in the
result.

Gutierrez, Jr., J., took no
part.