Macalinao, Romielyn P. Subject: Constitutional Law 1 Topic: Requirement as to Decision Title: R. M!RT"#$% &s C! Re'e Re'er rence ence:: (.R. (.R. #o #o.. 1)*+ 1)*+-
May May )1, )1, ) )1 1 !CTS
Petit Pe tition ioner er Rev. Rev. Fr. Fr. Dante Dante Martin Martinez, ez, then then Assista Assistant nt parish parish priest priest of Cabana Cabanatua tuan n City City, entere entered d into into an oral oral contr contract act with with privat private e respon responden dents ts Godofredo De la Paz and his sister Manuela De la Paz reardin the sale of !ot "o. #$$%&A&$ at the 'illa Fe (ubdivision in Cabanatuan City for the su) of P#*,+++.++. he aforesaid lot is located alon Maharli-a Road near the Municipal all of Cabanatuan City. At the ti)e of the sale, the lot was still reistered in the na)e of Claudia De la Paz, )other of private respondents, althouh the sa)e had already sold it to private respondent Manuela de la Paz by virtue of a Deed of Abso Absolu lute te (a (ale le dat dated May /0, /0,
#1%0 #1%0..
Priv Priva ate resp respon onde dent nt Ma Man nuela uela
subse2uently reistered the sale in her na)e on 3ctober //, #14#. 5hen the land was offered for sale to petitioner, private respondents De la Paz were acco)panied by their )other, since petitioner dealt with the De la Paz6s as a fa)ily and not individually. e was assured by the) that the lot beloned to Manuela De la Paz. 7t was areed that petitioner would ive a downpay)ent of P$,+++.++ to private respondents De la Paz and that the bala balanc nce e woul would d be paya payabl ble e by inst install all)e )ent nt.. After After ivi ivin n the the P$ P$,++ ,+++. +.++ ++ downpay)ent, petitioner started the construction of a house on the lot after securin a buildin per)it fro) the City 8nineers 3ffice on April /$, #14#, with the written consent of the then reistered owner, Claudia de la Paz. Conse2uently, petitioner also bean payin the real estate ta9es on said property.
3n 3ctober 0, #14#, the construction of the petitioner6s house was co)pleted and on :anuary $#, #14$, petitioner co)pleted the pay)ent for the lot. owever, private respondents De la Paz never delivered the Deed of (ale they pro)ised to petitioner. 3n 3ctober /4, #14#, in a Deed of Absolute (ale with Riht to Repurchase, private respondents De la Paz sold three lots with riht to repurchase the sa)e within one year to private respondents spouses Reynaldo and (usan 'eneracion for the su) of P#*+,+++.++. Petitioner discovered that the lot he was occupyin with his fa)ily had been sold to the spouses 'eneracion after receivin a letter fro) private respondent respondent Reynaldo Reynaldo 'e 'enera neracion cion on March March #1, #140, clai)in ownership of the land and de)andin that they vacate the property and re)ove their i)prove)ents thereon. Petitioner, in turn, de)anded throuh counsel the e9ec e9ecut utio ion n of the the deed deed of sa sale le fro) fro) priv privat ate e resp respon onde dent nts s De la Pa Paz z and and infor)ed infor)ed Reynaldo Reynaldo 'e 'enera neracion cion that he was the owner of the property property as he had previously purchased the sa)e fro) private respondents De la Paz. he )atter was then referred to the ;atarunan Pa)baranay of (an :uan, Cabanatuan City for conciliation, but the parties failed to reach an aree aree)en )ent. t. 3n May #/, #140, #140, privat private e respon responden dentt Reynal Reynaldo do 'e 'ener neraci acion on brouh brouhtt an action action for e
by virtue virtue of their their prior reist reistrat ration ion to the Reiste Reisterr of
Deeds. Petitioner filed a petition for review for the e
"SS/$S 5hether or not the denial of petitioner6s )otion for reconsideration before the Court of Appeals violated the Constitution for not statin the leal basis> R/L"#(S "o, such act is not a violation. Article '777, (ection #? of the #14% Constitution provides that @"o petition for review or )otion for reconsideration of a decision of the court shall be refused due course or denied without wi thout statin the basis therefor. therefor. he (upre)e Court ruled that this re2uire)ent has been co)plied with by the Court of Appeals by declarin in its resolution that it found no reason to chane its rulin because petitioner had not raised anythin new to provide further basis for the reconsideration. he he
CA6 CA6s reso resolu luti tion on stat states esBB
@Fo @For
reso resolu luti tion on is the the Mo Moti tion on for for
Recon Reconside sidera ratio tion n of 3ur Decisi Decision on filed filed by the petiti petitione oners. rs. 8viden 8vidently tly,, the )otion poses nothin new. he points and aru)ents raised by the )ovants have have been been co cons nsid ider ered ed and and pass passed ed upon upon in the the Deci Decisi sion on so sou uht ht to be reconsidered. hus, 5e find no reason to disturb the sa)e.
