ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 136270. February 16, 2000]

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 16, 2000.

G.R. No. 136270 (Spouses Arsenio and Nieves Reyes vs. Republic of the Philippines.)

Before the Court are the following: (a) the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioners assailing our December 13, 1999 resolution denying the petition filed by them on January 6, 1999; and (b) the motion for consolidation filed by petitioner Nieves Reyes, without the assistance of counsel, on February 2, 2000, praying for the consolidation of the herein case with G. R. No. 129247 ("Arsenio Reyes, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al.").

In their motion for reconsideration, petitioner merely reiterate: (1) their reliance on the May 5, 1995 resolution issued by then Acting Secretary of Justice Demetrio G. Demetria recommending that Transfer Certificate of Title No. (317789) 40312 be declared valid and genuine, and that the complaint in Civil Case No. 92-2135 be withdrawn; (2) that res judicata does not apply to Civil Case No. 92-2135 (the Republic's complaint for declaration of nullity and cancellation of petitioners' titles) and Civil Case No. 93-1566 (intervenor Solemar Development Corporation's ["SOLEMAR", for brevity] action for quieting of title) since there is no identity of parties and causes of action; and (3) the need for a relocation survey to settle once and for all the issue of the true metes and bounds of the property claimed by both petitioners and SOLEMAR considering that the property claimed by petitioner is different from that claimed by SOLEMAR.

We find no cogent reason to reverse or modify our December 13, 1999 resolution. The arguments raised in the motion for reconsideration have been amply discussed and we find no reason to disturb our earlier ruling. As regards the May 5, 1995 resolution issued by the Department of Justice heavily relied upon by petitioners, suffice it to state that it is a mere recommendation which is legally defined as an advice, exhortation, or indorsement, which is not binding upon the party to whom it is made, and is premised on the idea that the final decision lies in another (Cuyegkeng vs. Cruz, 108 Phil. [1960]; Bothelho Shipping Corp. vs. Leuterio, 118 Phil. 126 [1963]). Being advisory, it is a mere opinion, and thus cannot prevail over a judicial decision, particularly that which was rendered in Civil Case No. 93-1566.

Without necessarily changing the aforestated conclusions, we nevertheless, direct the consolidation of the two above-mentioned cases considering that the issues raised in both appear identical - both cases involve the question of ownership over the property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. (31798) 40312. The Court, however, observe that nowhere in the pleadings filed in the instant case did petitioners mention that a case involving the same issue and subject matter had already been pending with the Court since June of 1997, more than a year before the filing of the petition in the instant case. Further, we note that although SOLEMAR, private respondent in G.R. No. 129247, filed a motion for intervention, as well as a comment-in-intervention, in the instant case, petitioners did not even mention the filing and pendency of G. R. No. 129247 in their reply to said comment-in-intervention. Had this been done, the Court at that early stage, could have motu propio ordered the consolidation of the two cases. Instead, petitioners apparently chose to proceed quietly with the two cases, seemingly hoping for a positive outcome in any of them. Observably, petitioner Nieves Reyes, without the assistance of counsel, belatedly chose to disclose the pendency of G. R. No.129247 after our resolution denying due course to the instant petition was released or promulgated.

WHEREFORE, the instant case is hereby ordered consolidated with G.R. No. 129247 ("Arsenio Reyes, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.") where the motion for reconsideration filed herein (G.R. No. 136270) may be properly resolve.

SO ORDERED.