ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[ G.R. No. 124554. July 5, 1999]
ETERNAL GARDENS MEMORIAL PARK CORP. vs. CA, et al.
FIRST DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 5, 1999.
G.R. No. 124554 (Eternal Gardens Memorial Park Corporation vs. Court of Appeals and North Philippine Union Mission of the Seventh Day Adventist.)
Before us is this motion filed by petitioner Eternal Gardens Memorial Park Corporation ("EGMPC") asking for the reconsideration of our Decision dated December 9, 1997.1 [Rollo, p. 305.]
In our decision, we denied EGMPC's petition2 [Id., at 305.] and affirmed the Resolution dated January 15, 1996 of the Court of Appeals,3 [In its Resolution dated 12, 1996, the Court of Appeals denied Eternal Gardens' motion for reconsideration.] where the appellate court held as follows:
WHEREFORE, in compliance with Supreme Court resolution dated December 1, 1993 [in G.R. No. 73794], the Court finds the above report [dated November 10, 1995] to be a just and fair account of what Eternal Gardens Memorial Park owes to the petitioner North Philippine Union Mission of the Seventh-Day Adventist, and accordingly orders the former to as principal and P167,235,451.00 in interest within thirty (30) days from notice hereof.
The parties are also reminded to pay the accountant an honorarium of P25,000.00 each for the effort and time she put into the matter. 4 [See note 1, p. 35.]
In the instant motion for reconsideration, EGMPC raises the following grounds:
I
That the decision of this Honorable Tribunal in Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System vs. Court of Appeals 215 SCRA 783 [1992] and Heirs of Luis J. Gonzaga vs. Court of Appeals 261 SCRA 327 [1996] annulling the Transfer Certificate of Title Deprived From Original Certificate of Title No. 994, Dated May 3, 1917, wherefrom private respondent derived its title, are supervening event (sic) that will reveal petitioner is not liable for anything, in any manner, to the private respondent.
II
That the Commissioner's Report which was adopted by the respondent Court of Appeals unduly included properties not covered by the Land Development Agreement and charged interest without factual and legal basis.
III
That the Commissioner and the respondent Court of Appeals based the supposed liabilities of the petitioner on inadmissible and self-serving evidence of private respondent. 5 [Id., at 306.]
EGMPC asserts that the "spouses Jose Leelin and Lilia Sevilla are the owners of the disputed property" based on its reading of the two cited cases,6 [Id., at 319.] and prays inter alia that the Court here declare "the titles of [NPUM] which were derived from OCT No. 994 dated May 3, 1917 as null and void."7 [Id., at 337.]
We deny the motion for reconsideration.
The issue in the instant case is simply the correctness and accuracy of the accounting rendered by the appellate court by virtue of this Court's referral of the matter (G.R. No. 73794) to that court. It is glaring that EGMPC raises the issue of ownership now and here in its motion for reconsideration, obviously an afterthought. The fact is that the two cases invoked by petitioner were decided in 1992 (MWSS) before G.R. No. 73794 was referred to the appellate court, and in 1996(Heirs of Luis J. Gonzaga), during the pendency of the instant case. The issue of ownership has never been raised, except only now, either in the petition or in any of the subsequent pleadings EGMPC filed in this case. Nor was this issue involved in the proceedings before the appellate court, whose mandate from this Court was merely to render the necessary accounting.
Furthermore, we are without jurisdiction to entertain and much less grant petitioner's prayer that we declare NPUM's title as null and void. The arguments and issues raised by petitioner in its motion for reconsideration require adjudication of facts, which this Court cannot do, not being a trier of facts.8 [Calalang v. Register of Deeds of Quezon City, 261 SCRA 327 (1996).] Moreover, Section 48 of P.D. No. 1529, otherwise known as the Property Registration Decree provides that -
[a] certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral attach. It cannot be altered, modified, or cancelled except in a direct proceeding in accordance with law.
This means that petitioner cannot challenge the validity of NPUM's certificate of title in a proceeding such as this petition,9 [Ibid.] or as a defense in a civil case for ejectment,10 [Natalia Realty Corporation v. Vallez, 173 SCRA 534 (1989).] or as a counterclaim.11 [Spouses Cimafranca v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 147 SCRA 611 (1987).]
Quite revealingly, petitioner used in another case, G.R. No. 123698,12 [Eternal Gardens Memorial Park Corporation v. Court of Appeals and Sps. Lilia Sevilla and Jose Seelin promulgated August 5, 1998.] the contrary assertion - that there us a pending civil case (Civil Case No. C-11337 before the Regional Trial Court of Kaloocan City filed by the Republic of the Philippines against the spouses Jose Seelin and Lilia Sevilla for the nullification of twenty-two titles-to stay the execution of a civil case which was decided against it.13 [At p. 9.] Such shows that petitioner will use any and all arguments, even is these be incompatible and hostile, to delay its case.
Anent the second and third ground, these very same issues were ventilated in the appellate court, when the parties filed their respective comments on the accountant's Report dated November 10, 1995. In its January 15, 1996 Resolution, The appellate court disposed of EGMPC's arguments thus:
The Court, by agreement of the parties, appointed and authorized its accountant, Ms. Carmencita C. Angelo, to receive, collate and analyze the documents to be filed by the parties, in order to arrive at the final figures representing the obligations of Eternal Gardens Memorial Park Corporation and to submit the report to Court with copies furnished to the parties. Ms. Angelo submitted her final report dated November 10, 1995, and both parties were required to comment thereon.
Respondent Eternal Gardens Memorial Park Corporation objected thereto. It said that the documents used as bases were inadmissible, and that the accountant's report was "exaggerated, bloated and incredible."
x x x
The Court finds Eternal Gardens' objections to the report as totally bereft of merit, especially in view of the fact that it was its express obligation to preserve all accounting documents for he petitioner's [NPUM] examination, and that it was given all the opportunity to comply with its obligation. It cannot be heard to complain now that the Court had to go to other documents - audited reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission - to establish its obligations in favor of the petitioner. It did nothing to assist the Court, which is the kindest thing to be said of its conduct in the matter. Besides, its representatives sat down with the Court accountant and the other party to reach the court accountant's conclusions and cannot, thus, be heard to complain. 14 [CA Decision, p. 4-6; Rollo, p. 28-30.]
The same issues were again in EGMPC's petition15 [Petition, p. 8; Rollo, p. 15.] and passed upon by the Court in its Decision of December 9, 1997 where we observed that:
From the transcript of stenographic notes of the proceedings in the appellate court, we find that EGMPC acquiesced to the use of the documents submitted by NPUM, including the financial statements, even actively participating in the discussion of the contents of such documents. EGMPC's main objection was only on how the entries in these documents were to be interpreted, for example, on how payments towards the perpetual care fund would be credited. (TSN, August 29, 1995, pp. 16-17) EGMPC did not object even when counsel for NPUM read into the records the contents of the documents. (TSN, August 29, 1995, p. 40)
It even appears that after Ms. Angelo came up with her first report, EGMPC's counsel expressed that it was "amenable to that computation." (TSN, August 29, 1995, p. 44) In that report, Ms. Angelo had stressed that "[s]ince the Eternal Gardens Memorial Park, Inc. did not submit to the Court any documents pertaining to the computations of the 40% share of the North Philippine Union Mission of the Seventh Day Adventist, then we have no other recourse but to base the computation on the available figures and on the other documents as presented by the petitioner [NPUM]. (Rollo, CA G.R. SP No. 04869, p. 356)" 16 [Decision, pp. 30-31; Rollo, pp. 296-297.]
We also found that EGMPC was allowed every opportunity to present its case and was given the forum to confer with NPUM's accountant's and with the court accountant via conferences.17 [Decision, p. 28; Rollo, pp. 294.]
This has been a clog in the court dockets for over two decade, with EGMPC acknowledging its oblidations to NPUM under the land Development Agreement of October 6, 197618 [See Rollo, G.R. No. 73794, pp. 427-430, quoted in the decision in the instant case in pp. 32-34.] and yet hedging in making due deposits for a good part of those two decades.
CONSIDERING THE FOREGOING, the Court Resolved to DENY the motion for reconsideration dated December 24, 1997 filed by petitioner Eternal Gardens Memorial Park Corporation. This denial is FINAL.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
