DELTA MOTORS CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, TENTH DIVISION AND NATALIA CARPENA OPULENCIA, RESPONDENTS.

The Decision of this Court of 29 November 1988 decreed as follows:

“WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby MODIFIED in
that the spouses Manuel and Natalia Opulencia are hereby ordered to pay Delta Motors
Corporation the sum of P2,147,162.49 plus interest at the legal rate, back real
estate taxes, and costs, the same to be paid into the Trial Court within a period of ninety (90) days from the
date of service of this judgment, and in case of default of such payment, the
properties mortgaged shall be sold in the manner and under the regulations that
govern sales of real estates under execution, the proceeds realized to be
turned over to petitioner Delta Motors Corporation.”

Before us now is private respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration on the following grounds:

“I.       This Hon. Court
sustained the Decision of the Hon. Court of Appeals that the Sheriff’s Sale of
April 30, 1980 was improper and unlawful and yet failed to order that the
possession of the property in question be given to the private respondent
considering that the same is now in the possession of the petitioner.

“II.      The amount of P2,147,162.49 plus interest at the legal rate which this Hon.
Court ordered the private respondent to pay unto
the petitioner is the wrong amount.

“III.     The decision failed
to specify the date from which interest is to be paid.

“IV.    The period of ninety
(90) days given by this Hon. Court
is much too short.”

Private respondent then
prays:

“1.   That the possession of the property in question
meaning the parcel of land and the Opulencia Ice
Plant covered by Original Certificate of Title No. RD-124 (O-722) be ordered transferred to private respondent Natalia Carpena Opulencia;

“2.   That the amount which private respondent is
being ordered to pay to the petitioner be changed from P2,147,162.49
plus interest at the legal rate to P1,644,496.19 plus interest at the legal
rate;

“3.   That this Hon. Court
order the interest to be paid from August
6, 1979, the date the trial court issued a writ of execution for
the full compromise amount;

“4.   That this Hon. Court allow private respondent
to pay the amount to the petitioner not within ninety (90) days but within one
hundred eighty (180) days.” (p. 5, Motion for Reconsideration of Private
Respondent)

DELTA has opposed
reconsideration and the OPULENCIAS have replied to the opposition.

It bears repeating what we had stated in our Decision:

“It should be stressed, however, that while irregularities
attended the proceedings concerning the execution sale sufficient to affect the
Writ of Possession which is but a consequence thereof, the OPULENCIAS are bound
by the terms of the Compromise Agreement they had executed on 23 August 1978 and approved by the
Trial Court on 29 November 1978.  They cannot be allowed to renege on the same
x x x .  It is still
incumbent upon the OPULENCIAS to pay their judgment obligation to DELTA plus
interest at the legal rate and back real estate taxes paid thus far.” (p.
10, Decision)

Although, ordinarily, possession may be turned over to the
OPULENCIAS in view of the finding of this Court that irregularities attended
the proceedings concerning the execution sale, considering, however, that under
the Court-approved Compromise Agreement of the parties, it is incumbent upon
private respondent to pay their obligation to DELTA, it would serve no
practical purpose and would only delay the prompt determination of this
controversy were we to order the turn-over of possession to the OPULENCIAS,
who, under the terms of the judgment, are given ninety (90) days from notice
within which to pay the indebtedness, and in case of default of such payment,
the properties mortgaged shall be sold in the manner governing sales of real
properties under execution.

What is crucial, therefore, is for the OPULENCIAS to pay the
obligation within the 90-day period.  If
they do so, then possession of the mortgaged properties can definitively and
finally be turned over to them and the controversy settled once and for
all.  But if possession is turned over to the OPULENCIAS at this
stage and it should turn out that the OPULENCIAS are unable to settle their
obligation, they would have been able to regain possession even without paying
their obligation, which would be unjust to the judgment creditor.  This is specially so considering that the
obligation was incurred in 1970 and has remained unpaid from 1978 when the
Compromise Agreement was entered into, till the present.

We consider the period of ninety (90) days just and reasonable
considering the length of time – the ten (10) odd years – that the obligation has remained
pending.  In fact, it gives the
OPULENCIAS a fresh period within which to settle their long-standing
indebtedness.

Considering the manifestation that the amount of P2,147,162.49 already includes interest, the sum to be paid by
the OPULENCIAS is modified to P1,644,496.16, which is their judgment debt
pursuant to the Compromise Agreement. 
The twelve per cent (12%) annual interest on said amount, as stipulated
in the Compromise Agreement, should be reckoned from the date the Trial Court
issued the Writ of Execution, or, from 6
August 1979.

ACCORDINGLY, private respondent’s Motion for
Reconsideration is partially GRANTED and the dispositive
portion of the Decision of 29 November 1988 should now read as follows:

“WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby MODIFIED in that the spouses Manuel and Natalia Opulencia are hereby
ordered to pay Delta Motors Corporation the sum of P1,644,496.16 plus interest
at twelve percent (12%) per annum from 6 August 1979, back real estate taxes,
and costs, the same to be paid into the Trial Court within a period of ninety (90) days from the
date of service of this judgment, and in case of default of such payment, the
properties mortgaged shall be sold in the manner and under the regulations that
govern sales of real estates under execution, the proceeds realized to be
turned over to petitioner Delta Motors Corporation.”

SO ORDERED.

Paras, Padilla, Sarmiento,
and Regalado, JJ., concur.