CLARITA PIMENTEL DRAGON AND BENJAMIN S. PADAMA REPRESENTING PATRICIA M. PIMENTEL AND NICOLAS PIMENTEL, PLAINTIFF-APPELLLEES, VS. ROMMEL T. CARIÑO ARMANDO LAUBAN, CITY REGISTRAR …

This resolves appellees’ Motion for Reconsideration^[1] of the Court’s Decision^[2] promulgated 18 July 2014, granting appellant’s appeal.

In their 03 September 2014 Motion, appellees implore this Court to reconsider and set aside the above Decision and declare the real estate mortgage over the subject property null and void.

Appellees mainly argue that Clarita P. Dragon and Ramon Pimentel, Jr. did not execute an SPA in favor of Florecita S. Pimentel to act on their behalf in mortgaging the subject property. Appellees maintain that the signature purportedly belonging to Clarita was forged and that Ramon, Jr. was already deceased when the SPA was allegedly signed. Thus, Clarita and Ramon, Jr. could not have validly mortgaged their undivided interest in the subject property.

These same issues were squarely discussed and resolved in the Decision dated 18 July 2014.

A motion for reconsideration should point out specifically the findings or conclusions of the judgment or final order which are not supported by the evidence or which are contrary to law making express reference to the testimonial or documentary evidence or to the provisions of law alleged to be contrary to such findings or conclusions.^[3] This motion fails to do that. At most, the arguments in this motion are but a rehash of the issues amply addressed in the Decision sought to be reconsidered; therefore, We find no cogent reason to reverse our 18 July 2014 Decision.

WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is hereby DENIED for want of merit.

SO ORDERED.

^[*]Borja, J., Chairperson, and Inting, JJ., concur.

---

^[1*] per raffle committee report dated 06-18-14, vice J. Camello who is on leave
Rollo, pp. 164-172.

^[2] Rollo, pp. 152-161.

^[3] Section 2, Rule 37, Rules of Court.