SPOUSES FELIPE CHUA AND VIRGINIA ROBLES, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES, VS. ROSELLA VARONA, CRISANTO ESTRELLA, LUALHATI ESTRELLA, GUINHAWA ESTRELLA, LIGAYA ESTRELLA, TAGUMPAY ESTRELLA, P…

Before us is defendant-appellant’s Motion for Reconsideration^[1] directed at our Decision^[2] promulgated on September 22, 2014, the dispositive portion of which states:

“IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the October 10, 2011 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos City, Bulacan, Branch 12 in Civil Case No. 213-M-2001 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION, changing the date of the Deed of Absolute Sale from August 23, 1993 to August 24, 1993. All other aspects of the Assailed Decision stands.

SO ORDERED.”^[3]

Plaintiffs-appellees submitted their Comment^[4] on February 12, 2015 alleging that defendant-appellant failed to dispute the findings of this Court that it did not exercise due diligence required of banking institutions thus, it cannot be considered as mortgagee in good faith.

The ground anchored upon by defendant-appellant in this instant motion is exactly the main issue decided upon in the above-mentioned decision. The aspect of good faith by a mortgagee bank was exhaustively addressed and disposed of by this Court in the said Decision. In fact, defendant-appellant merely reiterated and restated principally the discussions in its Brief.^[5] The Supreme Court unequivocally ruled that rehashed pleadings should be denied as it would be a useless ritual for the Court to reiterate itself.^[6]

WHEREFORE, premises considered, defendant-appellant’s Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Villon, S.E., Chairperson and Corales, P.B., JJ., concur.

---

^[1] Rollo, pp. 143-146.

^[2] Rollo, pp. 132-140.

^[3] Rollo, p. 140.

^[4] Rollo, pp. 154-157.

^[5] Rollo, pp. 46-57.

^[6] Mendoza-Ong vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 146368-69, October 18, 2004.