ROMULO SUMAYAO, DOLORES SUMAYAO-BELMONTE AND CRISANTA SUMAYAO-FETALVO, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, VS. SALVADOR SUMAYAO, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.

The record reveals that the appeal filed by the plaintiffs-appellants was granted via our Decision^[1] of 18 August 2014 after we found ample bases for the nullity of the deeds of sale executed by Nicolasa Sumayao in favor of defendant-appellee Salvador Sumayao insofar as they cover the undivided interests of the appellants in the exclusive and conjugal properties that were co-owned by them together with the appellee and Nicolasa.

The appellee filed a Motion for Reconsideration^[2] of the aforementioned decision asserting that Parcel II represents his share in the estate of his deceased parents. He further asserts that the appellants had been given their respective shares in the estate of their parents through a simulated deed of sale. Anent Parcel IV, the appellee claimed that appellant Romulo Sumayao admitted that said parcel of land was a conjugal property of Nicolasa and Victoriano Sumayao.

The motion lacks persuasion.

We find no cogent reason to warrant a reconsideration of our decision which the appellee seeks to reconsider. The motion has not raised any new, substantial ground or reason that would call for either a reversal or modification of the grant of the appeal. The motion to reconsider our decision does not help at all because the assertions have been considered and discussed when we rendered the decision sought to be reconsidered. To discuss again the ratio decidendi of our decision would be to belabor the issues ad infinitum. In the absence of errors that must be rectified, we cannot give due credence to the motion of the appellee.

WHEREFORE, we DENY the motion for reconsideration.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

PJ Reyes, Jr., A.B., Chairperson and Gaerlan, JJ., concur.

---

^* Crisanta Sumayao-Fetalvo should have been removed as party-plaintiff from the case per 7 January 2000 Order of the RTC, Record, Vol. 1, p. 40.

^[1] Rollo, p. 75.

^[2] Rollo, p. 88.