"POR TANTO, se dicta sentencia, ordernando la ejecucion de la referida sentencia en la causa civil No. 487 en cuanto a la entrega del terreno en cuestion en dicha causa, entendiendose que dicha entrega debe verificarse previo pago por los demendantes al demandado de la suma de P221.74; sin pronunciamiento en cuento a las costas."

 This decision was likewise  not executed within the  statutory period of five  years, However,   in November, 1946,  Brigido Lozanto received from the   plaintiffs  the amount .mentioned therein.     The  plaintiffs were  net able tc  tales possession of  the  land in question because  the present defendants refused to vacate   the  same.     Consequently,   the plaintiffs instituted in the  justice of  the peace  court of Cataingan? Masbate,   on December 14, 1946, on-action for unlawful detainer which was however dismissed at their instance  to give way to  another action for possession and ownership filed by them en August 5, 1949  in the Court of First Instance  of Masbate  against the  present defendants.    Plaintiffs'   right of action was premised on. the allegation of ownership in virtue  of the decision in Civil Case No,. 854. In their answer the defendants alleged in substance  that the  decision in Case No. 854 had lapsed and  therefore  oould no longer be enforced against them who,  moreover,  were  not parties to said case;   that they not only had acquired ownership ever  the  land in question as a result of plaintiffs failure  to enforce  their judgment within the  statutory period but also had acquired title  to and over said land by acquisitive prescription by actual, continuous,  open, notorious, hostile,  peaceful,  public and uninterrupted possession for more  than forty years. The  case was submitted for  decision upon the  following stipulation of facts;

 "Come now the plaintiffs and  the  defendants by their undersigned attorneys, and to this Honorable  Court respectfully submit the  above  case  for  decision on the following stipulation of  facts In the  above entitled case  as follows:

 "1.   That on September 20,  1926,   the  heirs of the  late Gregorio Acuesta,  the present plaintiffs, filed a case  for re-ivindicacion against Brigido Lozanto,   the father of  the herein defendants which was decided against Brigido Lozonto by the Court of First Instance  of Masbate  on March 8,  1928. This decision was  appealed by the defendant Brigido Lozanto  and was affirmed by the  Supreme  Court on April 21,  1930, copies of the  decision of  the  Court of First Instance of Masbate  and the Supreme Court marked  as  annex 'A'   and   'B'   respectively are herewith enclosed and made  part of this stipulation.
 
"2.  That no execution was issued to en force   the   judgment of  the Supreme  Court before   the  five  years period elapsed  so   that the  plaintiffs on September  2,  1937,   filed an action to enforce  the judgment of  the Supreme   Court which was docketed as Case Mo. 854 of  the  Court of First Instance of Masbate.     The  case was decided in favor of  the plaintiffs on March 15, 1940,   but this decision was not also executed within the  five years period provided by law.    However,  on November, 1946, Brigido Lozanto received from the  plaintiffs  the  amount mentioned in the   judgment of 1930,  as well as of 1940,  above mentioned.    Copy of the  judgment of the Court of First Instance  of Masbate  in Case No.  854 is herewith marked as annex "C'  made port of this stipulation.

 "3.  That when the  plaintiffs  tried to  take possession of the land,   after paying Brigido Lozanto as stated above, the present defendants in this instant case   (Case No. 212), namely:  Severe,  Celestino and Eugenio,  all surnamed Lozanto refused  to  surrender the pos­session of  the land claiming ownership of the  same  by acquisitive prescription because the  judgment above mentioned have  elapsed. As a consequence,   the  present plaintiffs filed a case of unlawful detainer in the Justice of the Peace  Court of Cataingan,  Masbate,  on December 14, 1946,  which at the  instance  of the plaintiffs the  same was dismissed on February, 1947  to give way to  the present action for possession and ownership which was filed on August 3, 1949. Copy of the  decision of  the  justice of  the  peace   court of Cataingan, Masbate is herewith marked as  annex 'D'   and made  a part of this stipulation.

 "4.  That during all the  time   that the above mentioned cases Nos,  487,  854,   44  (in the justice of the peace  court), and the present case  were   212,   the  plaintiffs  in this  case were never placed in possession of  the land in question.
 
"5.  That the land in question in this  case  No.  212,   is  the   same land in question in case Nos.  487,  854  and No.   44 of the   justice  of  the peace   court,

 On. December 15, 1950,   the  Court of First instance  of Masbate rendered a decision with the following dispositive part:     "WHEREFORE,  from all  the   foregoing,   the   conclusion is inevitable  that the  plaintiffs did not acquire the  parcel of land  in question by virtue  of  the   judgment of 1940, the  basis of the  action of the  plaintiffs,  and therefore, the plaintiffs have no right to bring the  present action against the present defendants, who as aforesaid were not parties to  the   suit which gave rise  to the  judgment of 1940 (Sec,  44,   par.   (b)  Rule   39  of  the Rules of  Court;  Acasic  vs. Albao,  10 Phil.,   410;  Rabino  vs.  Ravida,  14 Phil.,   704;  Martinez vs.  Diza,   20 Phil.,  498;   Cho  Chun Chao  vs.  Garcia,   47 Phil,,  530;  Razote  vs. Razote,  49 Phil.,  181;  Provincia del Santisimo Nombre  de Jesus vs.   Conrad,  59 Phil.,   503;   and Lilius vs, Manila Railroad Co.,   62 Phil., 56)  and this Court has no other alternative  than to dismiss this case with costs  against the  plaintiffs."   From this  decision the  plaintiffs have appealed.
 
 The lower court sustained the proposition that plaintiffs   action is one for  the enforcement of the   judgment in Case No. 854.    In our opinion this is erroneous.    While. the   complaint mentions  the  decision in Case  No,  854,   the purpose obviously was not to enforce  it but merely to set it forth as a basis for or evidence  of plaintiffs' ownership;  and this is clear from the  allegation in the  complaint to  the effect that the  defendants are "three  of the children of Brigido Lozanto from whom the  plaintiffs acquired the land above-described by virtue  of the  decision  rendered by this Honorable  Court of First Instance of Masbate  in Civil Case Mo. 854",  and also from the allegtion that "pursuant to the  tenor of the  said decision the plaintiffs paid Brigido Lozanto the  sum of P221.74 for the  coconut trees planted by him on the  said land, after which,  on November 11,  1946,   the  said Brigido Lozanto delivered the possession of the land above  described to the herein plaintiffs,"

As a matter of fact,   there was no need for any action to enforce  the  decision in Case Mo, 854,  because Brigido Lozanto had voluntarily accepted from the plaintiffs the payment ordered therein,  and there  is nothing in the  stipulation of facts  to  show that Lozanto had refused or failed to perform his obligation under said decision; the  stipulation merely reciting that the defendants had refused to surrender possession of the land under claim of ownership by acquisitive prescription through lapse of judgment.

What has been stated is sufficient for a reversal of  the appealed decision and a judgment in plaintiffs'   favor. In. the interest of equity, however,  in view of the allegation in the answer that the defendants have  acquired ownership through adverse possession for more  than forty years, and it being agreed that the plaintiffs were never in occupancy,  the  case will be,  as it is hereby so ordered, remanded to the  court below for  the ventilation of the defendants' claim of ownership by adverse possession.    Without pronounce­ment as to  costs.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Jugo, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., and Endencia, JJ., concur.