FIRST
DIVISION
HEIRS
OF EMILIANO
NAVARRO,
Petitioner,
G.
R.
No. 68166
October
13, 1997
-versus-
INTERMEDIATE
APPELLATE
COURT and
HEIRS OF SINFOROSO
PASCUAL,
Respondents.
R
E S O L U
T I O N
HERMOSISIMA,
JR., J.:
On March 21, 1997,
private respondent Heirs of Sinforoso Pascual, by counsel, filed a
pleading
denominated as "Omnibus Motion [Re: Motion for
Clarification/Reconsideration/
to Remand Case]" with the following presentation:
I.chanrobles virtual law libraryRe:
Motion
for Clarification
1.1 Without meaning
to be fastidious, the Pascual Heirs find the Decision promulgated by
this
Honorable Court on 12 February 1997 ["Decision"] confusing.
1.1.1 The
dispositive
portion of the Decision "DENIED and DISMISSED" the petition for review
filed by petitioners Heirs of Emiliano Navarro ["Navarro Heirs"]. The
ordinarily
means that the appealed decision of the then Intermediate Appellate
Court
was affirmed. Consequently, Pascual Heirs are apparently entitled to
the
issuance of a decree of registration over the subject land.
1.1.2 In the body
of
the Decision, however, this Honorable Court declared the subject land
part
of the public domain, not capable of appropriation by any private
person,
including the Pascual Heirs, "except through express authorization
granted
in due form by a competent authority".
xxx
xxx
xxx
1.4 It is in the
light
that the Pascual Heirs now move that this Honorable Court clarify xxx
the
dispositive portion of the Decision xxx
II.chanrobles virtual law library
Re:
Motion
for Reconsideration
2.1 Should this
Honorable
Court clarify that the Decision actually reversed, not affirmed, the
appealed
decision of the then Intermediate Appellate Court, the Pascual Heirs
respectfully
submit that the Decision should be reconsidered.
xxx
xxx
xxx
2.3 Since the
Decision
was mainly, if not entirely, based on the seriously flawed findings of
the Trial Court and Justice Serrano's dissenting opinion in the
appealed
decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court, the infirmity of the
Trial
Court's and Justice Serrano's purported findings equally plague the
Decision.
xxx
xxx
xxx
III.chanrobles virtual law libraryRe:
Motion
to Remand for Further Proceedings
xxx
xxx
xxx
3.3 Should this
Honorable
Court, however, find the need for more scientific or empirical data,
the
Pascual Heirs submit that it becomes appropriate to remand the case to
the Trial Court for further reception of the appropriate
evidence.
[Rollo, pp. 408-411]
We find no merit in the
Omnibus Motion insofar as it prays for the reconsideration of our
Decision
dated February 12, 1997 and/or for the remand of the instant case to
the
Regional Trial Court for further proceedings. The issues raised by
private
respondents as grounds for reconsideration have already been passed
upon
in our Decision and need no longer be belabored. Neither is there a
need
to remand the instant case to the lower court for further proceedings,
our findings and conclusions regarding the public nature of the parcel
of land in question having been reached only after an exhaustive and
scrupulous
study and analysis of all the facts, the evidence, the parties'
respective
arguments, and the prevailing law and jurisprudence.
It is imperative, however,
that certain typographical and/or clerical errors in the said Decision
be rectified in order that the body thereof and dispositive portion
therein
be harmonized.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, the following
specific portions of our the Decision dated February 12, 1997 in the
above-entitled
case are ordered rectified as follows:
[1] The sentence, "We
find no merit in the petition" on page 11 of the Decision shall
henceforth
read, thus: "We find merit in the petition".
[2] The term,
"petitioners"
used from pages 11 to 16 and on page 18 of the Decision shall
henceforth
read as "private respondents".
[3] The
dispositive
portion on page 18 of the Decision which reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, the
instant
Petition for Review is hereby DENIED and DISMISSED. Costs against
petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
shall henceforth read,
thus:
WHEREFORE, the instant
Petition for Review is hereby GRANTED.cralaw:red
The decision of the
Intermediate Appellate Court [now Court of Appeals] in CA G. R. No.
59044-R
dated November 29, 1978 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The
resolutions
dated November 21, 1980 and March 28, 1982, respectively, promulgated
by
the Intermediate Appellate Court are likewise REVERSED and SET ASIDE.cralaw:red
The decision of the
Court of First Instance [now the Regional Trial Court], Branch 1,
Balanga,
Bataan, is hereby ORDERED REINSTATED.cralaw:red
Costs against private
respondents.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
The Clerk of Court is
hereby ordered to make the foregoing corrections in the next of our
Decision
dated February 12, 1997 in the above-entitled case.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Davide, Jr., Bellosillo,
Vitug and Kapunan, JJ., concur. |