Petitioners Florentino filed a petition for review under rule 45 of the which assails the CA decision

The issue in this case whether or not he Court of Appeals

he issue for resolution is whether the Court of Appeals overstepped the bounds of judicial discretion in
reversing the orders of the trial court which substantially amended the dispositive portion of its nal and
executory judgment by reducing the damages awarded to respondents.

The petitioned stemmed from a complaint before the RTC Mariano, Cynthia and Adelfa, all surnamed
Rivera (hereinafter Riveras) against Vicente Florentino (hereinafter private respondent) and the latter as
third-party plaintiff against Teola Mendoza, et al., as third-party defendants (hereinafter Mendozas), for
rescission, annulment, redemption, reconveyance and damages, docketed as Civil Case No. 5761-M.

ordering Florentino to pay the Riveras annual lease rental of P500.00 for the year 1982 up to the time
possession had been delivered to the Riveras and to compensate in cash or in kind the Riveras' claim for
damage for unrealized annual harvest of 100 cavans from 1978 up to the present;

The petitioned stemmed from a complaint before the RTC Mariano, Cynthia and Adelfra

Petitioners Florentino filed a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the
February 10, 2005 Decision of the Court of Appeals CA-G.R. SP No. 1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
SP No. 62080 as well as its April26, 2005 Resolution 22 denying the motion for reconsideration. On the
contention that the Court of Appeals have overstepped its judicial jurisdiction when it reversed the
orders of the trial court which substantially amended the dispositive portion of the CA’s final and
executory judgment by reducing the damages awarded to respondents.

The petition stemmed from a complaint was filed before the RTC by the Cynthia and Adelfa Rivera
(herein this case respondents) against Vicente Florentino (herein in this case Petitioner) (SIDE NOTEand
the latter as third-party plaintiff against Teola Mendoza, et al., as third-party defendants for rescission,
annulment, redemption, reconveyance and damages, in Civil Case No. 5761-M. The dispositive portion
of which amongst others ordered Vicente Florentino to pay the Rivera’s annual lease rental of P500.00
for the year 1982 up to the time possession had been delivered to the Rivera’s and to compensate in
cash or in kind the Rivera’s' claim for damage for unrealized annual harvest of 100 cavans from 1978
up to the present.

Aggrieved, Petitioner Florentino appealed the foregoing decision to the Court of Appeals which affirmed
the same in a decision dated March 29,1996. Undaunted, private respondent filed a petition for review
on certiorari before the Supreme Court, which the court also denied in its resolution making the decision
final and executory on June 1,2000. Consequently, Respondents filed before the RTC a motion of
Execution which the latter granted.

Aggrieved Petitioner Florentino

moved for a motion of reconsideration on the ground that the decision sought to be enforced is vague
and contrary to the pronouncement made by the CA in the body of its decision that the petitioners were
deprived of only an area of 1,650 square meters or an annual harvest of 16.5 cavans. In its decision the
RTC granted the motion stating that : is hereby CLARIFIED to such extent that the quantity of the damages
which defendant Florentino must pay the Riveras for unrealized annual harvest is 16.5 (instead of 100)
cavans from 1978 onwards.