ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 135441.� April 13, 2005]
TOLENTINO vs. NATANAUAN
SPECIAL SECOND DIVISION
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated APR 13 2005.
G.R. No. 135441 (Roberto P. Tolentino vs. Dolores Natanauan, Rafaela Natanauan, Romulo Natanauan, et al.)
On November 20, 2003, the Court rendered a decision in the above-entitled case dismissing the petition filed therein for lack of merit, and the original records of Civil Case No. TG-1421 were ordered remanded to the Regional Trial Court of Cavite (Branch 18) for further proceedings. [1] cralaw
A copy of the decision was served on petitioner's counsel, and subsequently, on petitioner himself, at their last known addresses, but no motion for reconsideration was filed. The notice of judgment and decision sent to petitioner's counsel, the Buck Estate, Inc., and its counsel, Perfecto P. Fernandez, were also returned to the Court unserved. Thus, per Resolution dated September 22, 2004, the decision was deemed served by substituted service. [2] cralaw
Thereafter, respondents filed an Omnibus Motion a) Withdrawal of Manifestation, b) Issuance of Entry of Judgment, praying, inter alia, for entry of judgment in view of the Court's Resolution dated September 22, 2004. [3] cralaw
On October 29, 2004, Atty. Rolando B. Aquino entered his appearance for petitioner. Without contesting the Court's Decision dated November 20, 2003, petitioner's counsel sought a correction of alleged "substantive errors" in the narration of facts in the decision, to wit:
1.� "Roberto (petitioner) mortgaged the property in favor of
his co-defendant RCBC for the sum of P10,000,000.00.";
[4]
cralaw and
2.� "the Natanauans (respondents) purportedly sold the property to defendant Roberto." [5] cralaw
Respondents filed their Comment thereto, to which petitioner filed a Reply. [6] cralaw
After having gone over the decision, the Court does not find any error in these statements. As stated in the Decision, these statements were respondents' allegations in their complaint filed in Civil Case No. TG-1421, and were based on the annexes attached thereto as contained in the original records of the case. Thus, page 13 of the complaint contained the allegation that:
11. That the subject parcel of land was mortgaged by defendant BUCK
ESTATE, INC. thru defendant ROBERTO P. TOLENTINO to defendant RIZAL COMMERCIAL
BANKING CORPORATION in the amount of TEN MILLION (P10,000,000.00) PESOS
. . .
Meanwhile, the Deed of Sale dated March 9, 1979 provides that
Romulo Natanauan, Dolores Natanauan, Rafaela Natanauan, and Ernestina Natanauan
sold to Roberto P. Tolentino the parcel of land covered therein for the amount
of seven hundred thousand pesos (P700,000.00).
[7]
cralaw
Clearly, these statements find basis on the records of the case. Besides, these are not substantial matters that have to be corrected as these are not conclusive of the case and are merely part of the recapitulation of the allegations in the complaint.
With regard to respondents' motion for the issuance of entry of judgment, in view of the Court's Resolution dated September 22, 2004, wherein the Court's decision dated November 20, 2003, has already been deemed served on petitioner, the same may be granted.
WHEREFORE, petitioner's motion to modify the substantial findings of facts is DENIED. The Decision dated November 20, 2003 in the above-entitled case being final and executory, let judgment be entered in the Book of Entries of Judgment.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Rollo, p. 122.
[2] cralaw Id., p. 181.
[3] cralaw Id., pp. 187-188.
[4] cralaw Decision, p. 5.
[5] cralaw Ibid.
[6] cralaw see Temporary Rollo.
[7] cralaw Comment (To Appearance, Manifestation and Motion to Modify the Substantial Findings of Facts), Annex "A," Rollo, p. 235.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
