4/30/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly On May 7, 1991, this Court rendered a joint Decision in G.R. Nos. 85494 and 85496, now in 196 SCRA 731. This Court held that Choithram violated the trust relationship between him and Ishwar. Considering, however, that the two protagonists are brothers and that Choithram made wise investments of spouses Ishwar's money, this Court applied a Solomonic solution by dividing equally between spouses Ishwar and the Choithram family the two parcels of land subject of the litigation, including all the improvements thereon and income from 1967. This Court also ruled that Ortigas is solidarily liable with Choithram family to spouses Ishwar because of its bad faith in executing the deeds of sale in favor of Nirmla despite its knowledge that Choithram's general power of attorney had been revoked by Ishwar. Later, this Court realized that its Solomonic Decision, in effect, formulated a new contract for the parties. Thus, in its Resolution dated February 26, 1992, this Court declared that the disputed lots are solely owned by spouses Ishwar. The motion for reconsideration of the Choithram family was denied with finality. On March 18, 1992, this Court also denied Choithram's motion for clarification and/or second motion for reconsideration. Entry of final judgment was then made on March 20, 1992. Still obstinate to abide with this Court's final judgment, the Choithram family filed a petition for certiorari, through the Overseas Holding Corporation, (docketed as G.R. No. 105071) seeking to set aside as "unconstitutional" this Court's May 7, 1991 joint Decision declaring, among others, that the mortgaged contract involving the two parcels of land executed between Nirmla and Overseas Holding is void. This Court denied the said petition for being in the nature of a third motion for reconsideration and stressed that a writ of certiorari may not issue from the Court en banc to annul a Decision of one of the Court's Divisions. This Court forthwith ordered the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 112 to execute with dispatch its joint Decision of May 7, 1991 and Resolution dated February 26, 1992. The parties and counsel were also warned to desist from further assailing an already final Decision and raising anew issues already passed upon. Per Resolution of this Court dated August 26, 1992, the case was re-assigned to the RTC of Pasay City, Branch 119. Thereafter, execution proceedings and hearing on the valuation of the disputed properties ensued. Because of the Choithram family's continuing delaying tactics and evasive moves against the execution of this Court's Decision and due to the desire of spouses Ishwar to quickly obtain the fruits of their many years of court battle, the latter were constrained to agree to a compromise agreement which was denominated as Tripartite Agreement. It bears stressing that spouses Ishwar were claiming for the value of the two lots, not the lots themselves. To clear up this issue, the July 19, 1993 Tripartite Agreement fixed the valuation at P65,000,000.00 which the Choithram family, together with Ortigas, agreed to pay spouses Ishwar, thus: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/52364 3/9