ARTHUR MAATUBANG, FOR HIMSELF AND AS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT OF THE HEIRS OF SALUSTIANO MAATUBANG AND KRIMHILDA Y. MAATUBANG, NAMELY: IVA MAATUBANG ESCALANTE, IMELDA MAATUBANG-TORRES, …
DIAMANTE, F. N., J.:
Subsequently, or on September 11, 2014, defendants-appellants filed a Motion for Reconsideration[3] of the above-cited Decision to which a Comment dated November 4, 2014[4] was filed thereto by the plaintiffs-appellees.
Defendants-appellants urged Us to take a second look at Our Decision stressing that this Court erred in giving weight to the Affidavit of Non-Tenancy executed by Fidencio Aguilar and, consequently, holding that there was no existing tenancy relationship in the case at bench.[5]
We resolve to deny the motion.
After a careful scrutiny of Our Decision and the rationale therefor, We are ever more convinced of its legal logic and correctness. The core issues raised by defendants-appellants are but a mere rehash of the issues already dissected, analyzed and passed upon adequately by this Court, hence, We find no sufficient or justifiable reason to disturb the same.
WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, the Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Librea-Leagogo, C.C., Chairperson, and Sadang, M.Q.C., JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, pp. 84-93.
[2] Id. at 42-53.
[3] Id. at 95-101.
[4] Id. at 107.
[5] Id. at 98.