On 10  March  1956 the spouses Ildefonso  Biando  and Modesta Espanto filed in the  Court of First Instance of Camarines  Sur  an amended  complaint  against Ciriaco Embestro and Ramon Bardaje praying  that  the deed of sale of a parcel  of land with  the right  reserved by the vendors to repurchase  it executed by them on 19 May 1952 in favor of  the  defendant Embestro be  declared one of equitable  mortgage to guarantee the payment  of a loan of P100; that the assignment or conveyance of  the parcel of land by Embestro to Bardaje on 18 July 1953 be declared null and void; that Embestro  be ordered to receive from the plaintiffs the sum of P100 tendered by the latter on 19 May 1955 as  payment of the loan and the sum of F5 as reimbursement for expenses incurred in the execution of the deed;  that the defendants be ordered to pay the plaintiffs damages  in  the sum of F438 annually from May 1952 until possession of the parcel of land is delivered to them; that the defendants be ordered to pay the costs; and that the plaintiffs be granted other just and equitable relief  (civil  No.  3154).

The defendants  answered that the  deed  of sale  of the parcel of land with the right reserved  by the vendors to repurchase it executed  by the plaintiffs is  as it purports to be; that  the plaintiffs never  offered to repurchase the parcel of land; that before selling it  to his co-defendant, Embestro offered to resell  it to the  plaintiffs but the latter could not repurchase  it because they  had no money;  and that before buying it the defendant Bardaje inquired from the plaintiffs  whether they were still  interested in  repurchasing  it but the latter assured him that  they were not because  they  had  no money.  The defendants  set up  a counterclaim of P500 as expenses incurred in clearing the parcel of land and planting it  with abaca, banana and other plants.

At the pre-trial conference of  the parties  assisted by their respective counsel held by  the Court on 7 May 1956, the parties  agreed:

1. That the defendants hereby  resell  to  the plaintiffs the  land described in  Annex "A" of the complaint for P100.00;
   
   
2. That in addition to the sum  of PI 00.00, the plaintiffs will pay the defendant Ramon Bardaje the value of  whatever improvements he may have  introduced on  said land since it was conveyed to him by the defendant Ciriaco Embestro to the present;
   
   
3. That the parties hereby reserve their right to present  evidence on the improvements  introduced by said  Ramon Bardaje as well as the value thereof;
   
   
4. That Mr. Daniel P. Magistrado be  appointed commissioner to. go to the,land and make an ocular inspection of the improvements thereon to ascertain their nature, extent, age and value. He must perform his duties in  the presence  of the  parties or their representatives, and his fees shall be  paid in share and share alike by them, to be charged as  costs against the defendants if there are no improvements on  the  land and  against the  plaintiffs if there are improvements on the land;
   
   
5. That the defendants will  execute the deed of reconveyance and deliver the land to the plaintiffs as soon as the judgment rendered herein becomes final, and the sum  of P100.00 together with the value of the improvements, if any, is  paid to the defendant Ramon Bardaje, and that the  plaintiffs will  pay these sums  as soon likewise1 as the decision becomes final;
   
   
6. That the parties hereby waive all their other claims to damages and attorney's fees;
   
   
7. That the hearing of this case for the approval of the commissioner's  report and the reception of evidence  on the improvements on  the land is set for June 28,  1956; and
   
   
8. That hereafter judgment be rendered in  accordance with this Order, without any pronouncement as to  costs.
   

After an ocular inspection, the Commissioner submitted to the Court his report on 13 June 1956.  As no objection to the  report  was  interposed by  any of  the  parties, the Court rendered judgment, the  dispositive part  of which set for trial, neither the plaintiffs  nor their counsel appeared  despite notice.  The defendants appeared by counsel and submitted the case for  decision on the basis of the amicable settlement entered into by and between the parties and the  Commissioner's report.  On 30 June  1956 the Court rendered judgment,  the  dispositive part  of which provides:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the defendant Ramon Bardaje to execute to the  plaintiffs the deed of reconveyance of the land described in  Annex "A" of the complaint and to deliver it to him as soon as this decision becomes final and condemning the plaintiffs to pay  Ramon Bardaje, as soon likewise as this decision becomes  final, the sum of P158.00 and  the commissioner's  fee paid by  Bardaje,  amounting  to P20.00, without  any pronouncement  as to costs.  To obviate any controversy, Ramon  Bardaje must deposit with the Clerk of Court  the deed of reconveyance and the plaintiffs the  amount of P178.00  or before the date  this decision becomes final.

On 25  July 1956, the  plaintiffs filed  a motion praying that the Provincial Treasurer of Camarines Sur be ordered to  deliver  to  the  defendant Bardaje  the  sum  of P105 deposited by them with the Clerk of Court under Official Receipt No. 0584461, dated 28  November 1955,  which  in turn  was deposited  with the Provincial Treasurer under Official Receipt No. 0586417,  dated 29 November 1955.  On 26  July the Court entered an order authorizing Bardaje to withdraw from the Provincial Treasurer the sum of P105.

On 30  August the  defendant  Bardaje filed  a motion praying that for failure to deposit in full the sum of P178, the plaintiffs  be  restrained from entering the parcel of land, gathering the fruits of the plants and exercising acts of possession and ownership therein.  On 1 September the Court denied the  defendant's motion for his failure to deposit with the Clerk of Court the deed of reconveyance. On 4 September the plaintiffs deposited with the Clerk of Court the balance of P73 to complete payment of the sum of P178.  On 13 September the defendant Bardaje  filed a motion for reconsideration of the order of 1 September denying his motion dated 30 August.  He claimed that the amicable settlement  entered into by the parties on 7  May 1956 at the pre-trial conference called by the Court created reciprocal obligations between them, to wit: the plaintiffs to deposit in court the sum of P178 on or before the judgment becomes final and the defendant Bardaje to execute the deed of reconveyance as soon  thereafter, and that not having  deposited the sum of P178, but only  the sum of P105 within 30 days  before  the  judgment  became  final, that is  from 14 July when he received notice of judgment to  13  August, and  having deposited the balance  of P73 only on 4 September,  or  21  days  after the judgment became final, the plaintiffs' cannot demand of him the fulfillment of his obligation.  On 15 September the Court denied the motion for reconsideration.

On 6 October  the plaintiffs prayed that the defendant Bardaje be ordered to execute  the deed of reconveyance. On the dame date the defendant  Bardaje objected to the plaintiff's  motion for the  same  reasons  adduced in his previous  motions.   On  9 October the Court entered an order  directing the defendant Bardaje  to execute within 35 days from receipt of notice  thereof the deed of reconveyance and, should  he fail to  do  so, authorizing and directing the Clerk  of Court to execute the deed for him. On 12 October the defendant filed a notice of appeal  from the foregoing order, a record on  appeal and  appeal bond.

On the same day, he filed a petition for a writ of injunction to restrain the plaintiffs, their  agents or representatives, or any other person acting in their name, place and stead, from  entering  the parcel of land, gathering the fruits therefrom and exercising acts of ownership and possession therein during the pendency of the appeal.  On 13 October the Court entered an order denying his petition for a writ of  injunction, and another on  20 October directing the defendant Bardaje ''to expugn from the record on  appeal the statements on page 1 not found in the judgment, orders or pleadings entered or submitted in this case and incorporate therein the amended complaint, the amended answer, and the  motions  and  orders herein-above referred to," within one week from receipt of notice.  On 24 October the defendant Bardaje filed  a motion for reconsideration of the previous  order.  On 27  October the Court  denied his motion.  Ob 10 November the defendant Bardaje filed a notice of appeal from

* * * (a)  the order of the court of October 13, 1956, denying his petition for injunction; (b) the order of October 20, 1956, disapproving his original record  on appeal; (c) the order of October 27, 1956, denying his motion for reconsideration of the orders (a) and (b) first mentioned: and  (d) the order of October 6, 1956, ordering defendant to execute the deed of reconveyance, said orders being clearly against the law.

In his brief the appellant argues only against the order of 9 October 1956  directing him to execute the deed of reconveyance within 35  days from receipt of notice of the order, and should he fail to do so, authorizing and directing the Clerk of Court  to execute it for him.

In the amicable settlement entered into by and between the parties and in the judgment rendered pursuant thereto, the  Court ordered  the  appellant to execute the  deed of reconveyance and deliver possession of the parcel of land to the appellees, and the appellees to pay the appellant the sum of P178 as soon as the judgment becomes final, meaning immediately or after the judgment becomes final. Appellants received notice of the  judgment on  14 July 1956.  Pursuant to the Rules, it became final on 13 August. Before judgment became final,  or on 25 July the appellees filed a motion praying that the Provincial  Treasurer of Camarines Sur be ordered to deliver to  the appellant the sum of P105 previously deposited by them with the Clerk of Court and later on with the said Provincial Treasurer; on  26 July the Court  entered an order authorizing the appellant to withdraw from  the Provincial Treasurer the said sum of P105; and 21 days after the  judgment became final, or on 4 September, the appellees deposited with the Clerk of Court the balance of P73 to complete the sum of P178 due from them.  The appellant refused to draw and receive  the two sums  deposited by the appellees.  The appellees  having performed  their part  of the  reciprocal obligation are  entitled  to  compel the appellant to  fufill his.  The last part of the judgment, to the effect that "To obviate any controversy, Ramon Bardaje must deposit with the Clerk of Court the deed of reconveyance and the plaintiffs the amount of P178.00 on  or before the date this decision becomes final," cannot prevail over the agreement of the parties and the  first part of the  judgment of the Court that their reciprocal obligations be performed as soon as the judgment becomes final. It is but  a mere suggestion of the Court to the parties to avoid further controversy, which cannot  alter or  modify their agreement sanctioned by the Court.   And even if it be given effect, time not being the essence of the  agreement,  a  slight delay on the  part  of the appellees in  the  performance  of their obligation is not sufficient ground for the resolution of the agreement.

The order appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the  appellant.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Montemayor,  Bautista Angelo, Labrador,  Concepcion, Endencia, and Barrera, JJ., concur.