G.R. No. 178906 - ELVIRA T. ARANGOTE, VS. SPS. MARTIN MAGLUNOB AND LOURDES S. MAGLUNOB, AND ROMEO SALIDO.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered: Declaring the [herein petitioner and her husband] the true, lawful and exclusive owners and entitled to the possession of the [subject property] described and referred to under paragraph 2 of the [C]omplaint and covered by Tax Declaration No. 16666 in the names of the [petitioner and her husband]; Ordering the [herein respondents] and anyone hired by, acting or working for them, to cease and desist from asserting or claiming any right or interest in, or exercising any act of ownership or possession over the [subject property]; Ordering the [respondents] to pay the [petitioner and her husband] the amount of P10,000.00 as attorney's fee. With cost against the [respondents]. [13] The respondents appealed the aforesaid MCTC Decision to the RTC. Their appeal was docketed as Civil Case No. 5511. Respondents argued in their appeal that the MCTC erred in not dismissing the Complaint filed by the petitioner and her husband for failure to identify the subject property therein. Respondents further faulted the MCTC for not declaring Esperanza's Affidavit dated 9 June 1986 -- relinquishing all her rights and interest over the subject property in favor of petitioner and her husband -- as null and void insofar as respondents' two-thirds share in the subject property is concerned. On 12 September 2000, the RTC rendered its Decision reversing the MCTC Decision dated 6 April 1998. The RTC adjudged respondents, as well as the other heirs of Martin Maglunob, as the lawful owners and possessors of the entire subject property. The RTC decreed: WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows: 1) The appealed [D]ecision is REVERSED; 2) [Herein respondents] and the other heirs of Martin Maglunob are declared the lawful owners and possessors of the whole [subject property] as described in Paragraph 2 of the [C]omplaint, as against the [herein petitioner and her husband]. 3) [Petitioner and her husband] are ordered to immediately turn over possession of the [subject property] to the [respondents] and the other heirs of Martin Maglunob; and 4) [Petitioner and her husband] are ordered to pay [respondents] attorney's fees of P5,000.00, other litigation expenses of P5,000.00, moral damages of P10,000.00 and exemplary damages of P5,000.00. [14] Petitioner and her husband filed before the RTC, on 26 September 2000, a Motion for New Trial or Reconsideration [15] on the ground of newly discovered evidence consisting of a Deed of Acceptance [16] dated 23 September 2000, and notice [17] of the same, which were both made by the petitioner, for herself and in behalf of her husband, [18] during the lifetime of Esperanza. In the RTC Order [19] dated 2 May 2001, however, the RTC denied the aforesaid Motion for New Trial or Reconsideration. The petitioner and her husband then filed a Petition for Review, under Rule 42 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, before the Court of Appeals, where the Petition was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 64970.