RHEMA INTERNATIONAL LIVELIHOOD FOUNDATION, INC., REP. BY MANUELITO D. TRAYA AND/OR ROSA TUBAY AND/OR BOY V. HAUTEA, PROPERTY ADMINISTRATOR, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. EVANGELINE C. C…

Instead of addressing Our observations on September 13, 2013^[1] about procedural impediments to petitioners’ remedy under Rule 65, the series of papers from movants thereafter did not dwell on what is ordinarily contemplated by acknowledged tenets in Rule 37 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

In lieu of a detailed discussion on possible defects concerning the procedural angle of the Decision, petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration focused on substantive provisions of the Civil Code.^[2] Necessarily, such sub rosa treatment from petitioners can hardly produce the desired result.

Accordingly, for lack of persuasive force, We hereby DENY petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration.

SO ORDERED.

^* Gonzales-Sison, M., Chairperson, and ^**Bueser, D. Q., JJ., concur.

---

^* Acting Chairperson, per Office Order No. 352-13-RSF dated September 11,2013.

^** Acting Senior Member, per Office No. 350-13-RSF dated September 10, 2013.

^[1] Rollo, pp. 108-116.

^[2] Motion for Reconsideration, pp. 2-4, Rollo, pp. 120-122; cf. 1 Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium, 10th edition, 2010, pp. 427-428, citing Section 2, Rule 37, Francisco vs. Caluag, L-15365, December 26, 1961, Villalon, et al. vs. Ysip, et al., 98 Phil. 851 and other cases;2 Feria and Noche, Civil Procedure Annotated, 2013 edition, page 99 – “A motion for reconsideration must point out specifically the findings or conclusions of the judgment demonstrating the invoked ground; or are not supported by the evidence or which are contrary to law. There should be an express reference to the testimonial or documentary evidence or to the provisions of law alleged to be contrary to such findings and conclusions.” (citing Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank vs. Ortiz, 150 SCRA 380,391 [1987 ], Marikina Valley Development Corporation vs. Flojo, 251 SCRA 87,93 [1995 ].