CRESENCIO DY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ELSA ALBANO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Cresencio Dy versus Elsa Albano

The Case

This is an action for the recovery of possession of real property, brought by Cresencio Dy as plaintiff against Elsa Albano as defendant. The plaintiff sought to eject the defendant from the subject property on the ground that she had failed to comply with a prior written demand to vacate. The case matters to the Bar candidate because it illustrates the settled rule on motions for reconsideration: a motion that merely recycles an issue already raised and already passed upon by the Court will not prosper, and the Court will not disturb its earlier ruling absent a compelling reason.

Procedural History

The case began in the Regional Trial Court of Aparri, Cagayan, Branch 9, in a civil case for recovery of possession. The trial court rendered a decision dated October 5, 2012, which was the decision assailed on appeal. The defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals. On August 8, 2014, the Court of Appeals rendered its Decision affirming with modification the decision of the trial court, deleting the award of attorney's fees in the amount of 15,000 pesos in favor of Cresencio Dy. The defendant then filed a Motion for Reconsideration of that Decision, on the ground that there was no acceptable proof of service of the demand letter for her to vacate the subject property. The plaintiff's counsel filed a Comment and Opposition, alleging that the motion was devoid of factual and legal basis and designed merely to delay the disposition of the case, which had been filed eleven years earlier, and further alleging that the plaintiff had died recently and would never have the opportunity to enjoy the use of the property. The Court of Appeals resolved the motion in the decision now before us.

Facts

Cresencio Dy filed an action against Elsa Albano for the recovery of possession of a parcel of real property. The complaint rested on the defendant's failure to heed a prior written demand to vacate the premises.

The Regional Trial Court of Aparri, Cagayan, Branch 9, rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision with modification, deleting the award of attorney's fees in the amount of 15,000 pesos in favor of the plaintiff.

The defendant moved for reconsideration, insisting that there was no acceptable proof of service of the demand letter. The plaintiff opposed the motion, noting that the case had been pending for eleven years and that the plaintiff had recently died. The Court of Appeals denied the motion, holding that the issue of the alleged lack of prior written demand had already been raised in the defendant's Brief and squarely passed upon in its earlier Decision.

Issues

• Whether or not a motion for reconsideration may prosper where it raises no new issue or argument and merely repeats a matter already raised and resolved by the Court.
• Whether or not the alleged lack of prior written demand to vacate, already passed upon in the earlier Decision, furnishes a compelling reason to reverse or modify that ruling.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote any statutory provision. It rests on the settled doctrine governing motions for reconsideration, which the Court states as follows:

The settled doctrine is that a motion for reconsideration will not prosper if it is bereft of any new issues or arguments not appropriately resolved by the Court.

This doctrine bears on the case because the defendant's motion raised no new issue, only the same lack of prior written demand already resolved in the earlier Decision.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the motion for reconsideration will not prosper. The settled doctrine is that such a motion must present new issues or arguments not appropriately resolved by the Court. The defendant gave no compelling reason to warrant a reversal or modification of the earlier ruling.

On the second issue, the Court held that the alleged lack of prior written demand to vacate had already been raised in the defendant's Brief and was squarely passed upon in the earlier Decision. A motion for reconsideration cannot be used to relitigate a matter already adjudicated. The Court therefore denied the motion.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, a motion for reconsideration will not prosper if it is bereft of any new issues or arguments not appropriately resolved by the Court. Second, an issue already raised in the appellant's Brief and squarely passed upon in the Court's Decision cannot be revived through a motion for reconsideration. Third, the movant must give a compelling reason to warrant a reversal or modification of the earlier ruling. These rules tie directly to the Court's stated doctrine that a motion for reconsideration will not prosper if it is bereft of any new issues or arguments not appropriately resolved by the Court.

Disposition

The Court of Appeals denied the defendant's motion for reconsideration, leaving standing its earlier Decision affirming with modification the trial court's judgment, with the award of attorney's fees in favor of Cresencio Dy deleted.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a motion for reconsideration will not prosper if it is bereft of any new issues or arguments not appropriately resolved by the Court. Examiners use this case to test whether a candidate knows that a motion for reconsideration is not a vehicle for relitigating an issue already raised and squarely passed upon.