[ Malaya.com.ph ] January 7, 2009
THE heirs of the Homer Barque, claimant to the 34-hectare Piedad Estate in the province of Rizal , yesterday asked the Supreme Court to reconsider its Dec. 18, 2008 resolution that that declared the disputed parcel of prime land as being owned by the Manotok family.
In a 36-page omnibus motion, the heirs represented by Teresita Barque-Hernandez said the SC’s First Division already ruled with finality in May 2006 to cancel the land title of the Manotok clan over the estate valued at P3.4 billion.
They said the SC reopening of the case that had been ruled with finality would open the floodgate to endless litigation.
"Litigants may now rely upon this case as precedent to elevate to the Court en banc, either through form of motions, or even through a mere letter to the Chief Justices and Associate Justices of the Court," lawyers Felix Carao and Jose Flaminiano said.
They said the December 18 ruling violated the doctrine of "immutability and unalterability" of final and executory decisions.
"With all due respect, this will be a monumental setback to the sound and orderly administration of justice, which this Honorable Court is sworn to maintain and enforce pursuant to the demands of public policy and public interest as enunciated in Section 16, Article II of the Constitution," the petitioners said.
They further said the ponencia of Associate Justice Dante Tinga was not adopted by the majority vote of the members of the Court who participated in the deliberations and voted.
The Barquezes said the voting of the justices covered three separate resolutions - the Tinga ponencia, the separate concurring opinion of Justice Antonio Carpio and the separate opinion of Justice Renato Corona.
They claimed that four justices, Chief Justice Reynato Puno, Associate Justices Ma. Alicia Austria Martinez, Presberito J. Velasco, Jr and Arturo Brion, sided with Tinga’s version to nullify the ponencia of Associate Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago decision and remand the case to the Court of Appeals.
Carpio wrote to nullify the decision, recall the entry of judgment and deny the administrative reconstitution of TCT 210177 filed by Barques. Associate Justice Conchita Carpio Morales joined him in said opinion.
Corona rendered a separate opinion that neither sided with Tinga’s ponencia nor adopted the concurring opinion of Justice Carpio. Instead, Corona recommended that the case be assigned to a special division of the CA, saying the appellate court has the power to pass upon the authenticity and validity of certificate of titles.
Thus, petitioners said, Corona did not resolve anything else except to remand the case to a special division.
"The foregoing differences in the dispositive portions of their opinions and the justices respectively supporting their separate opinions clearly indicate the lack of necessary unanimity of votes of a majority of at least eight members of the Court en banc for the proper and valid adoption of a definitive disposition of the case," they said.
In a decision penned by Santiago last Dec. 12, 2005, the SC’s First Division affirmed the CA’s ruling that cancelled the land title of the Manotok clan in favor of the Barques.
The ruling became final and executory on May 2, 2006 after the division denied the Manotoks’ motion for reconsideration and second motion for reconsideration and ordered that no further pleading be allowed. The entry of judgment was issued on June 22, 2006.
Subsequently, the Barques filed multiple motions with the First Division seeking the execution of the judgment, including the issuance of a writ of possession or for execution.
On the other hand, the Manotoks filed an urgent motion to refer motion for possession to the SC en banc and to set the issue for oral argument, which it granted through a resolution issued on Aug. 22, 2006. – Evangeline de Vera
