Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS
Manila

FORMER SPECIAL SIXTEENTH DIVISION

HEIRS OF RODOLFO CA-G.R. CV No. 97375

MANIPOL ALVAREZ,
represented by BEATRIZ
ALVAREZ, Members:
Plaintiffs-Appellants,

VILLON, S.E., Chairperson

-versus- MACALINO, F.S., and
*
ANTONIO-VALENZUELA,
N.G., JJ.
SPOUSES PABLO and FIDELA
ZARATE and the
TECHNOLOGY AND Promulgated:
LIVELIHOOD RESOURCE
CENTER INC. (TLRC),
represented by its SEPTEMBER 16, 2014
President/Chairman of the
Board and the MUNICIPAL
ASSESSOR OF LOS BAÑOS,
LAGUNA,
Defendants-Appellees.

x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

RESOLUTION

MACALINO, J.:

Defendants-appellees Technology Resource Center (“TRC”) and

spouses Pablo and Fidela Zarate, separately filed their Motion for
Reconsideration of the April 24, 2014 Decision1 of this Court, which
granted plaintiffs-appellants' appeal and disposed as follows:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is

GRANTED. The March 29, 2011 Decision of the Regional
Trial Court of Calamba City, Branch 92 in Civil Case No. 3229-
02-C is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The May 30, 1978
Deed of Absolute Sale, the tax declarations issued pursuant
* Acting Junior Member per Office Order No. 138-14-RSF dated April 10, 2014.
1 Rollo, pp. 188-197.
CA-G.R. CV No. 97375 2
Resolution
..................................................................................................................

thereto, and the real estate mortgage constituted over Lot No.
4310 situated in Barrio Maahas, Los Baños, Laguna are hereby
declared NULL and VOID insofar as the ½ share of
plaintiffs-appellants in the subject property is concerned.

SO ORDERED.”2

TRC reiterates the contention that laches had already set in,
barring plaintiffs-appellants to question the May 30, 1978 Deed of
Absolute Sale and that the allegation of oral partition should not have
been given weight and credence.3 Spouses Zarate on the other hand,
insist on the validity of the Deed of Absolute Sale and deny the
existence of an oral partition or donation of the subject property.4

These matters are not new and have been resolved by the
decision of April 24, 2014, which declared that the subject property
has already been assigned to Rodolfo Alvarez and Fidela Zarate prior
to their parents' death. This finding was supported by the fact of
plaintiffs-appellants and spouses Zarate's occupation of their
respective portion of the subject property as early as 1975 and was
even testified to by Fidela Zarate. Acknowledging in effect the
existence of an oral partition through the exercise of acts of
ownership over their respective portions of the subject property, the
Deed of Absolute Sale and the mortgage constituted over it are not
valid as to the portion belonging to the plaintiffs-appellants. As to the
issue of laches, there was no sufficient evidence to demonstrate that
plaintiffs-appellants unduly slept on their rights for an unreasonable
length of time.5

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motions for

Reconsideration are DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

FLORITO S. MACALINO
Associate Justice

2 Rollo, p. 196.
3 Rollo, pp. 201-207.
4 Rollo, pp. 223-227.
5 Heirs of Alejandra Delfin v. Rabadon, et al., G.R. No. 165014, July 31, 2013.
CA-G.R. CV No. 97375 3
Resolution
..................................................................................................................

WE CONCUR:

SESINANDO E. VILLON
Associate Justice

NINA G. ANTONIO-VALENZUELA
Associate Justice