Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2007 > July 2007 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 169501 : July 16, 2007] B.E. SAN DIEGO, INC. VS. ROSARIO T. ALZUL :

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 16 JULY 2007:

G. R. No. 169501 (B.E. San Diego, Inc. vs. Rosario T. Alzul).

Last June 6, 2007, this Court issued a Resolution^[1] with regard to G.R. No. 169501 (B.E. San Diego, Inc. vs. Rosario T. Alzul), which reads:

Considering the allegations, issues and arguments adduced in the petition for review on certiorari, the Court resolves to DENY DUE COURSE to the petition for failure to sufficiently show that respondent court had committed any reversible error in the questioned judgment to warrant the exercise of this Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction.

xxx.

Subsequently, on June 8, 2007, this Court promulgated a Decision involving the same case, the dispositive portion of which states:

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED, the February 18, 2005 Decision and August 31, 2005 Resolution of the CA are REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and the September 18, 2003 Resolution and December 2, 2003 Order of the OP are hereby REINSTATED. Petitioner is ORDERED to reimburse respondent whatever amount the latter has paid for the subject properties per the Contract to Sell No. 867. Petitioner is DECLARED to be the true and legal owner of Lots Nos. 5,6,7 and 8, Block 18, Aurora Subdivision, Maysilo, Malabon City. The Register of Deeds of Manila, District III, Malabon City Branch is ORDERED to cancel Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. N-1922, N-1923, N-1924, and N-1925 in the names of spouses Carlos N. Ventura and Sandara L. Ventura and register the same in the name of petitioner. The lis pendens in favor of respondent annotated on the Transfer of Certificates of Title over the subject properties is hereby LIFTED, and the Register of Deeds for Metro Manila, District III is DIRECTED to CANCEL said lis pendens. Respondent and all claiming under her are ORDERED to vacate the subject properties and surrender them to petitioner within sixty (60) days from finality of this judgment. No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

As early as March 6, 2006, the petition for review filed in the instant case was already given due course, and the parties were required to submit their respective memoranda. A petition that is given due course is readily assigned to the ponente for the writing of the Court's resolution/decision, which in this case was Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. Thereafter, the Court, in the Resolution dated March 26, 2007, directed the Court of Appeals to elevate the records of this case. The parties complied and the records were already forwarded to the Court. Clearly, the Court in finding merit on the petition, could not have intended to deny the petition in a minute resolution. For a minute resolution will issue only in cases where the Court does not find merit in the petitions and, thus, deny them due course for lack of reversible error in the assailed judgments brought to the Court for review.

With the draft of the decision now ready for deliberation, this case was placed in the agenda of the Division on June 6, 2007. During the Division session on June 6, 2007, the draft ponencia submitted by Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. was approved. However, through human error and inadvertence, the action taken in another case was applied in this case. As a result, a Minute Resolution dated June 6, 2007 denying due course to the petition for lack of reversible error was erroneously prepared and released.

The incorrect June 6, 2007 Resolution cannot be considered since as early as March 6, 2006, a Resolution was already issued giving due course to the petition and requiring the submission of memoranda. To this directive, the parties complied with their respective memoranda.

The Court therefore regrets the mistake committed and the confusion that resulted therefrom.

In light of these conflicting issuances, the Court, motu propio, RECALLS the Minute Resolution dated June 6, 2007, and AFFIRMS the June 8, 2007 Decision.

SO ORDERED.

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Attached as Annex "A".