1. JUDGMENT; WHEN DELIVERY OF POSSESSION MAY NOT BE ORDERED. — G sued T and E to annual a deed of sale of land made by E to T. E had previously sold same land to G.T. argued that the sale to G was void. Complaint was dismissed and judgment became final. Later T asked for execution and delivery of property to him. Held: Delivery may not be ordered on execution because judgment did not provide for transfer of possession.

In October, 1943, Felipe Garcia filed a complaint, (1) to annul the deed of sale executed by Laureano Estefanio in favor of his CO- defendant Jose L. Talens involving a parcel of land (a homestead) in Laur, Nueva Ecija, (2) to compel Laureano Estefanio to convey the property to him, and (3) to recover damages. It appears that after selling the lot of Felipe Garcia in 1938, Estefanio sold it again to Jose L. Talens in 1943. Talens contended in his answer that the first sale to Garcia was void because it violated a prohibition in the Public Land Act. After hearing the parties, the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija rendered judgment as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Bajo las consideraciones arriba expuestas, el juzgado halla ajustado a derecho la contencion del demandante y decide (1) declarar que el contrato de venta Exh. 1 asi como el contrato de ’quitclaim’ Exh. 2 sobre el terreno en cuestion y sus mejoras a favor de Jose Talens, nulos y de ning