ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 126363. July 23, 2003]

CONGREGATION OF THE RELIGIOUS OF THE VIRGIN MARY vs. CA

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this court dated JUL 23 2003.

G.R. No. 126363(The Congregation of the Religious of the Virgin Mary vs. Court of Appeals and Sps. Jerome and Teresa Protasio.)

For resolution are the motions for reconsideration filed by petitioner and private respondents seeking a partial reconsideration of the June 26, 1998 Decision of the Court which modified the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. CV 43311, by deleting the awards of back rentals, moral damages and attorney's fees.

A perusal of the petitioner's motion reveals that it merely reiterates the thrust of its petition which the Court found to be barren of merit. Indeed, the testimonial and documentary evidence presented by the petitioner failed to prove that Gervacio Serapio, the former owner of the disputed lot, granted the right of perpetual use thereof in its favor. Finding no new points which would warrant the reversal of the assailed decision, petitioner's motion must perforce fail.

Likewise, private respondents' motion for the reinstatement of the awards of back rentals, moral damages and attorney's fees, must be denied. Back rentals are in the form of actual damages which must actually be proved with a reasonable degree of certainty. Considering that private respondents failed to show specific facts from which the Court could base their entitlement to the award, as well as the amount and reasonableness thereof, back rentals cannot be granted. The same is true for the awards of moral damages and attorney's fees. The Court sees no cogent reason to justify such awards.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Motions for Reconsideration filed by petitioner and private respondents are DENIED WITH FINALITY. No further pleadings will be entertained.

Let entry of judgment made in due course.

The Court further Resolves to

(a)GRANT the motions of: (1) private respondents for leave and for first and second extensions totalling twenty (20) days from December 7, 1998 within which to file a rejoinder to the reply dated November 16, 1998 to the comment/opposition on the private respondent's motion for partial reconsideration of the decision of June 26, 1998; and (2) petitioner for leave and for first and second extensions totalling twenty (20) days from January 4, 1999 within which to file a sur-rejoinder to the rejoinder to the reply to the comment on the petitioner's motion for partial reconsideration of the said decision of June 26, 1998; and

(b)NOTE: (1) the reply of private respondents to the comment on the said motion for partial reconsideration of private respondents; (2) the rejoinder of private respondents to petitioner's reply dated November 16, 1998; (3) the sur-rejoinder of petitioner to the rejoinder to the reply to the comment on the petitioner's motion for partial reconsideration; and (4) the motion of private respondents for the immediate resolution of the case.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.)VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE