ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 108547. January 13, 1999]

FELICIDAD VDA DE CABRERA, et al. vs. CA, et al.

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 13, 1999.

G.R. No. 108547 (Felicidad Vda, De Cabrera, Maryjane Cabrera And Felicidad Teokemian vs. Court Of Appeals And Virgilia Orais De Felicio, represented by her Attorney-In-Fact, Ernesto M. Orias.)

For resolution is respondent's Motion for Reconsideration of the decision promulgated in this case on February 3, 1997, which granted the Petition, set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals, and reinstated the decision of the trial court of origin.

Movants place reliance on the following grounds:

I

"That the doctrine of laches was misapplied and Exh 'A' was not appreciated.

II

No trust but double sale (Art. 1544) is the factual/legal issue."

Evidently, the motion poses nothing new. The points raised and arguments advanced by movants merely reiterate the thrust of the "Comments To The Petition Dated February 26, 1993 With Prayer For Immediate Dismissal" which the court found to be wanting of sustainable merit. For instance, movant's submission that the "doctrine of laches" was misapplied, and Exh. "A" was not appreciated had been discussed and passed upon in the formulation of the decision sought to be reconsidered, which after giving a second hard look, we discern no ground to disturb.

Time and again, this court has succinctly ruled that a motion for reconsideration based on grounds found, upon due deliberation, to be barren of merit, should be denied. Such is the inevitable fate of the motion at bar.

WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration, dated February 21, 1997, under consideration is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.

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