ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 152947.  October 20, 2004]

EAST ASIA TRADERS vs. RP

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated OCT 20 2004.

G.R. No. 152947 (EAST ASIA TRADERS, INC. vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the DIRECTOR, LANDS MANAGEMENT BUREAU.)

For our resolution is the motion of respondent Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Director, Lands Management Bureau, seeking a partial reconsideration of our Decision dated July 7, 2004 directing petitioner East Asia Traders, Inc. to file with the trial court its answer to respondent's complaint within ten (10) days from notice.

To recapitulate, the antecedents of this case are:

On March 9, 1998, respondent filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 83, Tanauan, Batangas, a complaint for reversion and cancellation of Free Patent No. 1516, covered by OCT No. P-3218 and its derivative titles (TCT No. 36341 and TCT No. 38609), docketed as Civil Case No. CT-98-001. Impleaded as defendants were petitioner corporation, Galileo Landicho and Teresita Reyes (petitioner's predecessors-in-interest), and the Register of Deeds of Tanauan, Batangas.

Instead of filing an answer, petitioner, on September 14, 1998, filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the following grounds: (1) the cause of action has prescribed; (2) litis pendentia; and (3) the complaint fails to state a sufficient cause of action.

On January 11, 2000, the RTC issued an Order denying petitioner's motion to dismiss for lack of merit. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was likewise denied in its Order dated May 31, 2000.

Petitioner then filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari and prohibition (with prayer for issuance of a temporary restraining order and a writ of preliminary injunction) assailing the trial court's (1) Order dated January 11, 2000 denying petitioner's motion to dismiss; and (2) Order dated May 31, 2000 denying its motion for reconsideration.

On November 26, 2001, the Court of Appeals rendered a Decision dismissing the petition, thereby sustaining the assailed Orders of the trial court. Petitioner then filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied in a Resolution dated April 9, 2002. This prompted petitioner to file with this Court a petition for review on certiorari. On July 7, 2004, we rendered a Decision denying the petition and directing petitioner to file with the trial court its answer to respondent's complaint within ten (10) days from notice.

In the meantime, during the pendency of the instant petition, the trial court, in the absence of a temporary restraining order from us, proceeded to hear Civil Case No. CT-98-001. Petitioner, for failure to file its answer, was declared in default and respondent was allowed to present its evidence ex-parte. On September 20, 2002, after respondent rested its case, the trial court rendered a Judgment by Default. Thereafter, respondent filed with this Court a manifestation ^[1] cralaw that petitioner interposed an appeal to the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 77158.

Now, respondent, in its motion for partial reconsideration, prays that our Decision be modified by deleting that part of the dispositive portion which directs "petitioner to file with the trial court its answer to respondent's complaint within ten (10) days from notice."

Respondent's motion has merit.

Clearly, the trial court, having rendered a Judgment by Default dated September 20, 2002 in Civil Case No. CT-98-001, now pending appeal in the Court of Appeals (as CA-G.R. CV No. 77158), our Decision, insofar as it directs petitioner to file its answer, has become moot and academic.

WHEREFORE, the motion for partial reconsideration is GRANTED. The assailed portion of our Decision dated July 7, 2004 is hereby DELETED for being moot.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE