ANNEX OSPS LACAP vs. LEEG.R. No. 142131.December 11, 2002THIRDDIVISION, CORONA, J.FACTS:Before 1981, a certain Victor Facundo mortgaged two parcels of land and the improvementsthereon to Monte de Piedad Savings Bank (the bank, for brevity). In 1981, herein petitioner spouses Darioand Matilde Lacap assumed to pay Facundo’s mortgage obligation to the bank. Due to their failure to paytheir obligation to the bank, however, the latter foreclosed on the mortgage. During the auction sale, thebank emerged as the highest bidder and title passed on to it.The bank allowed the petitioner spouses to stay in the premises as lessees paying a monthly rentalof P800. The petitioner spouses introduced improvements thereon allegedly amounting to some P500,000after relying on the bank’s assurance that the property would be sold back to them. On May 1, 19965, thepetitioner spouses’ representative went to the bank to pay the monthly rental. However, the bank refusedto accept the rentals inasmuch as, according to the bank, the property had already been sold to anotherperson. When the petitioner spouses called the bank’s head office, the Vice-President of the AssetsDivision of the bank advised them to submit a written offer to the bank for P1,100,000. The petitionerspouses complied that same day. But, on May 22, 1996, the bank turned down the petitioner spouses’offer. On June 20, 1996, the petitioner spouses received a letter demanding that they vacate the premisesbecause it was already owned by herein respondent, Jouvet Ong Lee.The petitioner spouses instituted a civil case against the respondent for cancellation of sale and damageswith an application for preliminary injunction. This case is now pending before Branch 13 of the RegionalTrial Court (RTC, for brevity) of Davao City.Meanwhile, on October 30, 1996, the respondent filed acomplaint for unlawful detainer against the petitioners. After trial, the Municipal Trial Court of DavaoCity, Branch 4, rendered judgment.On appeal, the RTC of Davao City, Branch 11, affirmed the assailed decision of the municipal trial court,with the modification that respondent should reimburse the petitioner spouses for the improvements thelatter introduced to the premises. The respondent filed a motion for reconsideration praying for the deletion of the order to reimbursepetitioner spouses for the improvements introduced on the subject premises. On August 25, 1998, theRTC issued an order granting respondent’s motion. On August 23, 1999, the said court denied thepetitioner spouses’ motion for reconsideration.