ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 157529.� December 1, 2004]

ABESAMIS vs. ABESAMIS

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated DEC 1 2004.

G.R. No. 157529 (BAYANI F. ABESAMIS, represented by his Attorney-In-Fact, CARMEN ABESAMIS DICHOSO, vs. IBARRA ABESAMIS, represented by his attorney-in-fact, MARIUS L. ABESAMIS.)

Before us is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated October 24, 2002 and its Resolution dated March 10, 2003 in CA-G.R. SP No. 67744.

Ibarra Abesamis, respondent, represented by his attorney-in-fact, Marius Abesamis, filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 84, Quezon City a petition for reconstitution of T.C.T No. 100374 covering a house and lot located in Tandang Sora District, Quezon City.

Bayani Abesamis, petitioner, represented by his attorney-in-fact, Carmen Abesamis, filed an opposition to the petition.

Thereafter, respondent died, prompting petitioner to file with the RTC a motion to dismiss the petition for reconstitution. The court denied the motion on the ground that respondent's wife, Tomasita Abesamis, also signed the Special Power of Attorney in favor of Marius and that, therefore, the latter, as her attorney-in-fact, could still pursue the case.

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied. Forthwith, he filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari. This was dismissed as well as petitioner's motion for reconsideration.

Hence, the instant petition.

On November 10, 2003, we issued a Resolution giving due course to the petition and requiring the parties to submit their memoranda.

Subsequently, petitioner's counsel filed with this Court a motion to withdraw the petition on the ground that the parties have executed a compromise agreement acknowledged before the Philippine Consul in Los Angeles, USA. Attached to the motion is a photocopy of the compromise agreement.

In a Resolution dated January 12, 2004, we granted the motion to withdraw the petition and considered the case closed and terminated.

On January 9, 2004, respondent's counsel filed a motion praying that petitioner's motion to withdraw the petition be denied, contending that petitioner "duped" Tomasita into signing the compromise agreement.

In his comment on the motion, petitioner denied having "duped" Tomasita. In fact, it was she who suggested that the case be settled amicably by the parties.

In the meantime, respondent (now Tomasita Abesamis represented by Marius Abesamis), filed a motion for reconsideration of our Resolution dated January 12, 2004 granting petitioner's motion to withdraw the instant petition and considering this case closed and terminated. She alleged that "the compromise agreement is tainted with fraud, deceit and misrepresentation."

Considering the opposing claims of both parties, we can not conclude with certainty that indeed they have reached an amicable settlement.

WHEREFORE, respondent's motion for reconsideration of our Resolution dated January 12, 2004 granting petitioner's motion to withdraw the complaint and considering the case closed and terminated is hereby RECONSIDERED and the petition is reinstated. It appearing that both parties have not yet submitted the required memoranda pursuant to our Resolution dated November 10, 2003, they are directed to comply therewith, this time, within twenty (20) days from notice.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO

Asst. Division Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE