Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2008 > February 2008 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 169501 : February 27, 2008] B.E. SAN DIEGO, INC. V. ROSARIO T. ALZUL :

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 27 February 2008:

G.R. No. 169501 (B.E. San Diego, Inc. v. Rosario T. Ahul)

VELASCO, JR., J.:

Respondent Rosario T. Alzul filed her Motion for Reconsideration and Manifestation to the Decision dated June 8, 2007^[1] on July 30, 2007, questioning this Court's Decision vis-a-vis the Resolution dated June 6, 2007^[2] denying due course to the petition of B.E. San Diego, Inc. In addition, respondent raised the issues of petitioner's waiver of rights over the subject property by its non-intervention in G.R. No. 109078 which has long become final; that the assailed CA decision and resolution are in accord with applicable laws and jurisprudence considering that petitioner was accorded rights over the subject property and this Court referred to the court of origin for appropriate action the payment of the balance of the purchase price; and that considering the factual milieu, laches and estoppel do not apply.

We deny the motion.

First, our Resolution dated July 16, 2007^[3] clearly explains the erroneous issuance of the June 6, 2007 Resolution, thus:

As early as March 6, 2006, the petition for review filed in the instant case was already given due course, and the parties were required to submit their respective memoranda. A petition that is given due course is readily assigned to the ponente for the writing of the Court's resolution/decision, which in this case was Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. Thereafter, the Court, in the Resolution dated March 26. 2007, directed the Court of Appeals to elevate the records of this case. The parties complied and the records were already forwarded to the Court. Clearly, the Court in finding merit on the petition, could not have intended to deny the petition in a minute resolution. For a minute resolution will issue only in cases where the Court does not find merit in the petitions and. thus, deny them due course for lack of reversible error in the assailed judgments brought to the Court for review.

With the draft of the decision now ready for deliberation, this case was placed in the agenda of the Division on June 6, 2007. During the Division session on June 6, 2007, the draft ponencia submitted by Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. was approved. However, through human error and inadvertence, the action taken in another case was applied in this case. As a result, a Minute Resolution dated June 6, 2007 denying due course to the petition for lack of reversible error was erroneously prepared and released.

The incorrect June 6, 2007 Resolution cannot be considered since as early as March 6, 2006, a Resolution was already issued giving due course to the petition and requiring the submission of memoranda. To this directive, the parties complied with their respective memoranda.

The fallo of the Resolution reads:

In light of these conflicting issuances, the Court, motu proprio, RECALLS the Minute Resolution dated June 6, 2007, and AFFIRMS the June 8, 2007 Decision.

SO ORDERED.

The Court notes that respondent did not question nor challenge the Resolution dated July 16, 2007 by means of a motion for reconsideration, and said resolution became final and wrote finis to the issue.

Second, a close review of the other issues raised herein shows that these have been extensively discussed, taken up, and resolved in our Decision sought to be reconsidered. We will not belabor nor revisit them once more. Besides, we find no compelling reason to reconsider the same. Suffice it to say that while we agree with respondent that petitioner is indeed bound by this Court's disposition in G.R. No. 109078 in that respondent is accorded the right to pay for the balance of the purchase price, yet, as extensively discussed in our assailed decision, petitioner cannot be compelled to accept the tender of payment from respondent. Also, in G.R. No. 109078, we accorded respondent expectant rights over the subject property conditioned on the payment of the balance of the purchase price. Such condition has not been complied with as respondent miserably failed to
effect a valid payment through judicial consignment within a reasonable time. Thus, failing to effect a valid consignment, respondent's rights to the property have been forfeited.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent's motion for reconsideration is DENIED with finality for lack of merit. Quisumbing, J., on official leave; Azcuna, I, designated additional member pursuant to Adm. Circular No. 84-2007.

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Rollo, pp. 573-595.

^[2] Id. at 569.

^[2] Id. at 570-572.