MARCIAL O. DAGOT, JR., NELLY D. ALANGADI, TERESITA D. DALOJO AND THE HEIRS OF EVANGELINE D. EBUENGA, VS. SPOUSES GO CHENG KEY AND CHUA SIONG KUAN, TERESITA DIMALANTA AND CEFERINO DIMALANTA, REYNALDO GO AND JUDY GO, LOLITA ZABALA AND ROBERTO ZABALA, JOY GARCIA AND EDUARDO GARCIA, BERNARDO GO, FERDINA

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered: Upholding the validity, existence and indefeasibility of OCT No. G-558 with regard to the remaining two (2) hectares; Declaring the registration and inclusion of the two (2) hectares in TCT No. T-1220 and TCT No. T-1533 issued in the name of Pelagia Ebro and of Go Cheng Key, respectively, as null and void; Declaring the subdivision survey dated August 4, 1961 and all others subsequent thereto as null and void, and ordering the conduct of a new survey to segregate, separate and identify the two (2) hectares parcel of land from the technical description appearing in TCT No. T-1220 or TCT No. T-1533 and return the same as the new technical description for, appearing at and covered by OCT No. G-558; Declaring as null and void the registration and inclusion of such portion that forms part of the two hectares of plaintiffs in each of the following certificates of title: TCT No. 18933; TCT No. 18927; TCT No. 18931; TCT No. 18932; TCT No. 18929; TCT No. 18928; TCT No. 18930; and All other certificates emanating from them; Ordering the surrender of the above enumerated Transfer Certificates of Title with the Register of Deeds of Puerto Princesa City, immediately after the two (2) hectares have been identified, for their amendment and reduction in size and area in such ratio and proportion of the share actually received by each from Go Cheng Key; and Directing defendants, their successors-in-interest and all persons [sic] acting for and in their behalf to vacate and peacefully turn over possession to plaintiffs the two (2) hectares that will be identified by the survey. [17] [IT IS SO ORDERED]. Respondents filed a motion for reconsideration on June 4, 2009, which was denied by the lower court in an Order [18] dated October 15, 2009. However, on November 4, 2009, when the counsel for respondents personally received the Order dated October 15, 2009, respondents filed an Urgent Manifestation on the October 15, 2009 Order Denying the May 31, 2009 Motion for Reconsideration (Urgent Manifestation). In its Order [19] dated November 10, 2009, although the trial court considered the Urgent Manifestation as a second motion for reconsideration, it nonetheless allowed the same as it raised "new [issues] not raised before ... such as the concept of trust, among others." [20] In the same Order, the trial court also tolled the running of the 15-day period to file an appeal. Acting on the motion for reconsideration, the trial court issued an Order dated May 31, 2010, reversing its Decision dated May 19, 2009, and dismissing the complaint. The lower court noted that, prior to the execution of the Extra­judicial Settlement with Sale on November 16, 1990, Oblan had already sold four of the 17 hectares to several persons. Thus, Dagot et al. owned only the remaining 13 hectares of the subject property at the time they executed the extra-judicial settlement with sale in 1990. The lower court also found that the inclus