ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 155810. January 12, 2005]

SUMIPAT vs. BANGA

Gentlemen:

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

G.R. No. 155810 (Lydia Sumipat, Laurito Sumipat, Alejandro Sumipat, Alicia Sumipat and Lirafe Sumipat vs. Brigido Banga, Herminigildo Tabotabo, Viuiano Tabotabo, Bernardita Aninon and Leonida Tabo-tabo .)

This treats of the Motion for Reconsideration dated September 27, 2004 filed by respondents asking the Court to modify its Decision dated August 13, 2004 by ordering petitioners to render an accounting of the share of respondents in the litigated properties and to pay the latter their share in the produce of the lands from the death of Lauro Sumipat on January 30, 1984 until final delivery thereof to them.

Petitioners filed a Comment on the Motion for Reconsideration dated October 5, 2004, essentially arguing that respondents' Motion for Reconsideration is unwarranted as they did not raise as an issue the Court of Appeals' failure to order an accounting in its Decision dated April 11, 2002.

We agree with petitioners.

It should be recalled that the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's Decision dated September 29, 1997 and annulled the Deed of Absolute Transfer and/or Quitclaim dated January 5, 1983 insofar as it covers the conjugal share of Placida Tabo-tabo in the properties subject thereof. Notably, the appellate court did not order petitioners herein to render an accounting of all the fruits and income of the subject properties. Respondents failed to file a motion for reconsideration before the Court of Appeals or a petition for review before this Court to correct the omission. Neither was this issue raised in any of the pleadings filed before this Court until now.

Hence, the controversy presented before us in the Petition for Review on Certiorari dated October 30, 2002 principally centered on whether the questioned deed, by its terms or under the surrounding circumstances, validly transferred the disputed properties to petitioners. We ruled in the negative holding that the deed is an absolute nullity, whether construed as a donation or a sale.

The issue of accounting has thus been effectively foreclosed by respondents' own failure to file a motion for reconsideration or petition for review of the appellate court's Decision dated April 11, 2002.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the instant Motion for Reconsideration dated September 27, 2004 is DENIED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE