HEIRS OF GORGONIO CRAMPATANTA, NAMELY: NATAN CRAMPATANTA, MAXWELL CRAMPATANTA, ULDARICO CRAMPATANTA, & BELLY CRAMPATANTA (DULY ASSISTED BY HER HUSBAND, ALVARES HASIM); HEIRS OF …
FRANCISCO, J.:
The Motion for Reconsideration must be denied.
It must be stressed that the defendants-appellees failed to appeal the decision of the Court a quo. In fact, on 9 June 2011, defendant-appellee Priscilla Alavaren filed a Manifestation[3] stating that she stands by the Decision of the Court a quo. Thus, as We have stated in our 30 July 2013 Decision, the plaintiffs-appellants’ ownership of the lots covered by their certificates of title can no longer be questioned by the defendants-appellees.
Corollarily, as We have ruled in Our Decision, the defendants-appellees must be ordered to vacate and return to the plaintiffs-appellants any and all portions of Lot No. 256-H and Lot No. 256-F-5-E in their actual physical possession.
Accordingly, We find no reason to disturb our earlier ruling.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion for Reconsideration filed by respondents is hereby DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Borja, J., Ch., and Badelles, JJ., cocur.
[1] Rollo, pp. 86-90.
[2] Rollo, pp. 72-85.
[3] Rollo, pp. 66-69.