CASE 11 

[G.R. No. L-52733. July 23, 1985.]  

PILAR DE GUZMAN, ROLANDO GESTUVO, and MINERVA GESTUVO,
petitioners,  
vs.  
THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, THE HON. JUDGE PEDRO JL.
BAUTISTA, Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal,
Branch III, Pasay City, and LEONIDA P. SINGH, respondents. 
Barredo, Reyno & Tomacruz Law Office for petitioners. Adriano T.
Bruno for private respondent. 
 
FACTS: 
1. Petitioner’s/Plaintiff’s claim/s (no more than 3 sentences) 
The petitioners filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of
execution, claiming that the private respondent had failed to abide by
the terms of the compromise agreement and pay the amount
specified in their compromise agreement within the period
stipulated.  
 
2. Respondent’s/Defendant’s claim/s (no more than 3
sentences) 
The private respondent opposed the motion, saying that she
had complied with the terms and conditions of the compromise
agreement and asked the court to direct the petitioners to comply with
the court's decision and execute the necessary documents to affect
the transfer of ownership of the two parcels of land in question to
her. 
 
CASE 11 
[G.R. No. L-52733. July 23, 1985.]  
PILAR DE GUZMAN, ROLANDO GESTUVO, and MINERVA GESTUVO,
petitioners,  
vs.  
THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, THE HON. JUDGE PEDRO JL.
BAUTISTA, Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal,
Branch III, Pasay City, and LEONIDA P. SINGH, respondents. 
Barredo, Reyno & Tomacruz Law Office for petitioners. Adriano T.
Bruno for private respondent. 
 
FACTS: 
 1. Petitioner’s/Plaintiff’s claim/s (no more than 3 sentences) 
The petitioners filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of
execution, claiming that the private respondent had failed to abide by
the terms of the compromise agreement and pay the amount
specified in their compromise agreement within the period
stipulated.  
 
2. Respondent’s/Defendant’s claim/s (no more than 3
sentences) 
The private respondent opposed the motion, saying that she
had complied with the terms and conditions of the compromise
agreement and asked the court to direct the petitioners to comply with
the court's decision and execute the necessary documents to affect
the transfer of ownership of the two parcels of land in question to
her.