HEIRS OF JUAN ESQUIVEL, NAMELY: FELICITO SARZA (DECEASED), REPRESENTED BY HIS SURVIVING WIFE, LYDIA BURCE SARZA; ROMEO SARZA, FELISA SARZA-BES, MANUEL SARZA, SYLVIA SARZA-AREVAL…
CORALES, J.:
WHEREFORE, the appeal filed by Roger and Gloria Esquivel is DENIED while the appeal of Allied Moulding Corporation is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The February 17, 2010 Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 5, Legazpi City is hereby AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS:
1. The Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement dated June 1, 1998 is declared null and void; 2. The Deed of Sale for Lot No. 647 in favor of Allied Moulding Corporation is declared valid but only as to the proportionate shares of the Heirs of Felisberto Esquivel, represented by Roger Esquivel, and that of Gloria Esquivel and the Heirs of Felix Esquivel, as representative heirs of their deceased father Juan Esquivel, are concerned; 3. Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 49305 as well as the other titles issued thereafter, viz.: TCT Nos. 49439, 49440, 49569, and 49570, are hereby Cancelled and the Register of Deeds of Legazpi City is Ordered to restore Original Certificate of Title No. (980) 2324 in the name of Spouses Ramon and Pia Esquivel this time to cover only Lot Nos. 647-A and Lot No. 647-C; and 4. The Heirs of Felisberto Esquivel, as represented herein by Roger Esquivel, together with Gloria Esquivel and the Heirs of Felix Esquivel are ordered to return to AMC the amount paid for the shares of the other lawful heirs of Ramon Esquivel with legal interest.SO ORDERED.
On February 4, 2014, defendants-appellants Roger Esquivel and Gloria Esquivel Samar filed their Motion for Reconsideration.[2] It is noted that no Comment to said motion was filed by plaintiffs-appellees and intervenors-appellees as per verification from the Court’s Case Management Information System[3] dated February 9, 2015.
A perusal of the motion for reconsideration shows that the arguments raised therein are mere rehash of those already considered and passed upon by this Court, and no new issues have been presented to justify the reversal or modification of Our Decision.
WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Castillo, M., J., Chairperson and Lazaro-Javier, A., JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, pages 220-243.
[2] Ibid., pages 244-250.
[3] Ibid., pages 747-749.