ROMULO B. ESTRELLA, CESAR B. ANGELES, AND FELIXBERTO D. AQUINO, ACTING IN BEHALF OF AND AS REPRESENTATIVES OF HEIRS OF BARTOLOME P. RIVERA, ELEUTERIA RIVERA, PELAGIA R. ANGELES, MODESTA R. ANGELES, VENANCIO R. ANGELES, FELIPE R. ANGELES, FIDELA ANGELES, JOSEFA R. AQUINO, GREGORIO AQUINO, AND ROSAURO

Ruling

accordingly DISMISSED pursuant to Sec. 1(e), Rule 50 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. [31] (Emphasis in the original) Subsequently, the CA issued a Resolution, [32] the dispositive portion of which reads: FOR THESE REASONS , the Motion for Reconsideration filed by intervenor-appellant Tri-City Landholdings, Inc. and the plaintiffs-appellants' Manifestation with Motion to Admit Attached Appellants' Brief dated October 23, 2019 with Manifestation and Compliance are DENIED . Our Resolution dated 31 January 2020 STANDS . Accordingly, intervenor-appellant Tri-City Landholdings, Inc.'s appeal is likewise DISMISSED . SO ORDERED . [33] (Emphasis in the original) The CA explained that Estrella et al. were given 45 days, or until September 7, 2019, within which to file their Brief. However, despite receipt of the notice of the CA instructing them to file their Brief and the October 9, 2019 Minute Resolution, they failed to file on time. It took them six months, or on February 14, 2020, to file their Brief. [34] The explanation proffered by Estrella et al. was found to be unacceptable. The CA ruled that the attribution of negligence to the counsel's messengerial staff does not automatically shield the client from the adverse consequence of such negligence and relieve the client from the unfavorable result of such lapse. [35] The CA declared that their failure to find out the status of their appeal and to monitor whether the counsel filed their Brief on time rendered them undeserving of any sympathy from the court with regard to the negligence of their counsel. [36] As regards the intervention filed by Tri-City, the CA held that there was no other recourse but to also dismiss it. It underscored the rule that intervention cannot proceed as an independent action as it is merely ancillary and supplemental to the main action. [37] Moreover, the CA pointed out that this Court had already conclusively resolved in the consolidated cases of Manotok v. CLT Realty Development Corp . ( Manotok and Araneta ), [38] Angeles v. The Secretary of Justice , [39] and Phil-Ville Development & Housing Corporation v. Bonifacio [40] that OCT No. 994 dated April 19, 1917 is inexistent. In these cases, it was already declared that OCT No. 994 dated May 3, 1917 had already been partitioned among the true co-owners who later sold their respective shares to legitimate transferees. [41] The CA relied on the ruling of this Court in the consolidated cases of Manotok and Araneta , particularly the following pronouncements: The determinative test to resolve whether the prior decision of this Court should be affirmed or set aside is whether or not the titles invoked by the respondents are valid. If these titles are sourced from the so-called OCT No. 994 dated 17 April 1917, then such titles are void or otherwise should not be recognized by this Court. Since the true basic factual predicate concerning OCT No. 994 which is that there is only one such OCT differs from that expressed in the