ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 150164.� January 12, 2005]

VALARAO vs. DIAZ

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 12 2005 .

G.R. No. 150164 (Gloriosa V. Valarao vs. Conrado C. Pascual & Manuel C. Diaz.)

Pending before this Court is a motion for reconsideration filed by respondents on January 2, 2003. Petitioner filed her comment thereto on May 8, 2003, to which respondents replied on June 3, 2003. Petitioner filed a comment to aforesaid reply on June 10, 2003.

On July 30, 2003, respondents' motion for oral arguments was granted. Accordingly, the case was set for the purpose on August 13, 2003.

In the course of the hearing on said date, the parties, in response to the question of the Court as to whether they are willing to have this case settled, expressed their willingness to come together and settle amicably. Thus, the case was reset for another hearing on August 26, 2003.

On the date thus set, the Court granted the parties until September 30, 2003 within which to agree on a settlement of the estate subject of this case and to submit to the Court a written report and/or their agreement thereon. In a joint manifestation of the parties dated September 30, 2003, they gave themselves until October 10, 2003 to agree on a common proposal.

Up to the present, the parties failed to agree to a common proposal for partition of the estate. Its effort to finally terminate the controversy through amicable settlement having failed, this Court has no other recourse but to resolve the pending motion for reconsideration on its merits.

After considering the arguments raised in the subject motion vis- �-vis the comment, reply and comment to the reply, the Court finds no new matter of substance which had not been considered and resolved in the main decision.

WHEREFORE, for lack of merit, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED with FINALITY.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO

Assistant Division Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE