ChanRobles Virtual law Library

Home > Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2000 > :

chanrobles.com - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT RESOLUTIONS - ON-LINE

[ G.R. No. 100789. January 17, 2000]

AUGUSTO A. CAMARA, et al. vs. CA, et al.

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 17, 2000.

G.R. No. 100789 (Augusto A. Camara and Feliciana Camara, vs. Hon. Court of Appeals and Celina R. Hernaez.)

Before the Court is petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration of the Decision of this Court, dated July 20, 1999, which dismissed the petition for lack of merit.

The Decision sought to be reconstituted affirmed the ruling of the Court of Appeals that the action for quieting of title filed by the movants before the lower court was properly dismissed by the latter on the ground of lack of cause of action and res judicata.

Movants contend that the Decision ought to be reconsidered on the following grounds:

1. That the Court erred in its findings that the principle of res judicata is applicable in the case at bar;

2. That the Court erred in not holding that the movants' complaint for quieting of title was a direct attack on the validity of mortgage contract between deceased Jose C. Zulueta and Celina R. Hernaez and

3. That the movants are considered as junior lienholders over foreclosed subject lot who were deprived of their right of redemption.

The Court deems it unnecessary to discuss the first ground as the same has been thoroughly explained in subject decision and the court discerns no basis for disturbing the same.

With respect to the second and third grounds, movants themselves admit that their complaint for quieting of title before the trial court was intended to nullify the mortgage contract between private respondent Celina R. Hernaez and the deceased Jose C. Zulueta, and being junior lienholders over the foreclosed lot, they were allegedly deprived of their right of redemption.

It bears stressing, however, that said mortgage contract has been the subject of an action for judicial foreclosure brought by private respondent Celina R. Hernaez in Civil Case No 19093. As aptly stated in the decision of the Court of Appeals:

"xxx the decision in Civil Case No. 19093 had long become final and executory and fully executed. This case must therefore come to an end, in accordance with the oft repeated rule of stare decisis et non quieta movere. (Stand by the decisions and not what is settled) (Santiago vs. Valenzuela, 78 Phil 410; page 13 Annex "A", Decision, Civil Case No. 979, Appellants' Brief) " 1 Rollo, page 66.

After giving the Decision sought to be reconsidered a second hard look, the Court finds no sustainable basis for reconsidering the same.

WHEREFORE, for lack of merit, the petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration filed on August 14, 1999 id DENIED with finality.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON

Clerk of Court

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
2013

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011