Facts: A.

Respondents Julio and Zenaida Ko filed a petition for certiorari with prayer for the temporary restraining order of the ejectment case ordered by the metropolitan trial court of Manila or the preliminary injunction to stop such implementation of the said case by the Regional Trial Court of Manila Branch 40 B. Contradictory decisions where rendered by the lower courts concerned regarding the disputed premises involving the Camp of Ang Ping and Pimentel, the new owner of the disputed property acquired from a sale by T&L Development Corporation, previous owner of the property and is occupied by Julio and Zenaida Ko of which they were lessees even before the sale was done. C. The Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila ordered the camp of Julio Ko to vacate the disputed premises in favour of the petitioners and pay the latter a monthly rent of 5,000 pesos from March 1, 1981 until after they vacate the area less the other payments that were settled. However, RTC granted partially a motion for reconsideration by respondents lowering the ruled amount to be paid by them. The petitioners then, filed a motion to reconsider the decision of the RTC; however, their petition were denied so it resorted them to go back to MTC of manila and filed a motion for execution of the judgement rendered by the said court regarding the case. D. Thus, respondents opposed the motion because of the grounds that the RTC decided to nullify the previous sale of the property, of which is said to be contrary to Article 19 of the Civil Code, ordered the petitioners to sell the 190 square meters of land they had purchased from respondents upon paying them 190,000 Pesos by Julio Ko. However, the said grounds by the respondents were denied by MTC manila and still ordered the execution of the ejectment case. Moreover, a petition was filed, of which is still pending by the camp of Ang Ping in the Court of Appeals regarding the nullification of the sale ISSUE: -Whether or not an execution of a judgment ordering to vacate a disputed property will be superseded by a decision rendered by a superior court ordering the nullification of sale and granting the legal redemption in favor of the respondents. HELD: No, such decision of a superior court will not in any case supersede the decision of an inferior court for the reason that both decisions are tackling an entirely different matter. Unlawful detainer is a case concerning material possession while an action for reconveyance of a property is an issue of ownership. However, the court reiterated that a lower court has no capacities to interpret or reverse a decision of a higher court. Wherefore, the Supreme Court deemed that they have the final say in the matters of any justifiable controversy. On the other hand, the court said that the issue here is to settle the execution of the decision in the ejectment case and that on the matters of the nullification of sale and reconveyance of property should be decided by the proper courts and both parties have equal chances of winning. Moreover, they found that such decision of the RTC was improperly issued and that they side the petitioners. The court have ruled to immediately execute the decision of the ejectment case, sets aside the orders concerning the injunction of such and deemed that no motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration regarding this matter.