Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 133 views

    Relief For Judgment-Order - Oraller

    Uploaded by

    Gracelle Mae Oraller
    1) Maria Sixto filed a motion to dismiss a petition for relief from judgment that was filed by Ezperanza Properties Inc. against Alberto Malquisto et al. 2) The motion argues that the petition violates requirements for such petitions under the rules as Ezperanza had already filed two motions for reconsideration of the case and the six month period to file a petition has lapsed. 3) Maria Sixto requests that the petition for relief from judgment be denied outright due to lack of merit.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Relief For Judgment-Order - Oraller

    Uploaded by

    Gracelle Mae Oraller
    133 views4 pages
    1) Maria Sixto filed a motion to dismiss a petition for relief from judgment that was filed by Ezperanza Properties Inc. against Alberto Malquisto et al. 2) The motion argues that the petition violates requirements for such petitions under the rules as Ezperanza had already filed two motions for reconsideration of the case and the six month period to file a petition has lapsed. 3) Maria Sixto requests that the petition for relief from judgment be denied outright due to lack of merit.

    Original Description:

    Relief of Judgment

    Original Title

    1. Relief for Judgment-Order- Oraller

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Maria Sixto filed a motion to dismiss a petition for relief from judgment that was filed by Ezperanza Properties Inc. against Alberto Malquisto et al. 2) The motion argues that the petition violates requirements for such petitions under the rules as Ezperanza had already filed two motions for reconsideration of the case and the six month period to file a petition has lapsed. 3) Maria Sixto requests that the petition for relief from judgment be denied outright due to lack of merit.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    133 views4 pages

    Relief For Judgment-Order - Oraller

    Uploaded by

    Gracelle Mae Oraller
    1) Maria Sixto filed a motion to dismiss a petition for relief from judgment that was filed by Ezperanza Properties Inc. against Alberto Malquisto et al. 2) The motion argues that the petition violates requirements for such petitions under the rules as Ezperanza had already filed two motions for reconsideration of the case and the six month period to file a petition has lapsed. 3) Maria Sixto requests that the petition for relief from judgment be denied outright due to lack of merit.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 4

    Republic of the Philippines

    DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM


    ADJUDICATION BOARD
    Office of the Regional Adjudicator
    Tacloban City

    ALBERTO MALQUISTO, ET AL.,


    Complainants DARAB Case No. R-0801-103-04

    -versus-

    EZPERANZA PROPERTIES, INC., represented


    by Engr. ARNEL ARIEL, and
    MARIA L. SIXTO,
    Respondents.

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

    EZPERANZA PROPERTIES, INC., represented


    by Engr. ARNEL ARIEL,
    Petitioner, DARAB Case No. ____________

    -versus-

    ALBERTO MALQUISTO, ET AL.,


    Respondents.
    x-------------------------------------------x

    MOTION TO DISMISS
    PETITION FOR RELIEF OF JUDGMENT

    CO-RESPONDENT MARIA L. SIXTO, by counsel and unto this


    Honorable Office most respectfully avers: THAT—

    ANTECEDENT FACTS

    A decision was promulgated in the above-captioned case on 3 July


    2018, and received by the parties on 19 August 2018.

    Respondent CMH PROPERTIES INC. (herein petitioner) filed a


    Motion for Reconsideration on the decision on 3 September 2018. However,
    in its Order dated 30 November 2018, this Honorable Office found no
    cogent reason to reverse or set aside or amend the decision. Moreover, the
    Office also found that the motion for reconsideration was filed on September
    6, 2018, which was already beyond the reglementary period of fifteen (15)

    Page 1 of 4
    days to file said motion, as the decision was received by the CMH lawyer on
    August 18, 2018, and they had until September 2, 2018 within which to file
    the same.
    Respondent CMH Properties again filed a Motion for Reconsideration
    dated 27 December 2018 on the 30 November 2018 Order, which is
    tantamount to the prohibited Second Motion for Reconsideration. The same
    was submitted for resolution in the Office Order dated 20 March 2020.

    These essential facts were deliberately not alleged in the assailed


    Petition for Relief from Judgment, which petitioner CMH Properties Inc. has
    recently filed before the same Office against Alberto Malquisto, et al. – and
    deliberately omitting another indispensable party – herein respondent
    MARIA SIXTO.

    Pursuant to Section 4, Rule IX, DARAB New Rules of Procedure, a


    petition for relief from judgment must be based on grounds of fraud,
    accident, mistake and excusable neglect by which the order, resolution or
    decision complained of was rendered, provided that the time the fraud,
    accident, mistake or excusable neglect was discovered six (6) months from
    notice of order, resolution or decision from which relief is sought, and
    provided, further, that the petitioner has no other adequate remedy that is
    available to him in the ordinary course of law.

    However, in the foregoing premises, it is clearly shown that herein


    petitioner filed two (2) motions for reconsiderations. As far as herein
    respondent is concerned, the first motion was denied while the latter is still
    submitted for resolution.

    Likewise, herein respondent is aware of the fact that the complainants


    in this case have already filed their motion for execution of the decision, the
    same being now final and executory.

    Thus, it is evident that the petition violated all the requirements of


    Section 4, Rule IX of the DARAB New Rules of Procedure. First, the
    petitioner had other adequate remedy available to him in the ordinary course
    of law, such as the filing of two motions for reconsideration, and he is not
    prevented from filing a Notice of Appeal within 15 days reglamentary
    period. Second, the issues raised by him have already been raised and
    resolved in the two motions for reconsiderations aforementioned, and this
    petition is now begging off the questions again on the same matters already
    raised and resolved by this Office in the two (2) preceding motions for
    reconsiderations which petitioner deliberately failed to mention.

    Finally, the six months reglamentary period from notice of the


    assailed decision dated 3 July 2018 on August 18, 2018 up to the filing of
    the petition on October 2019 has already lapsed on February 18, 2019.

    Page 2 of 4
    WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, it
    is respectfully moved that the instant petition for relief from judgment be
    DENIED OUTRIGHT for lack of merit.

    Other reliefs just and equitable in the premises are likewise prayed
    for.

    Tacloban City. October 25, 2019.

    GRACELLE MAE O. ORALLER


    Counsel for the Respondent Maria Sixto
    Real St., Tacloban City
    Roll No. 00000 / IBP Lifetime No. 00000
    PTR No. 0000000; 1-3-20; Tacloban City
    MCLE Compliance No. IV-0005511; 4-23-20

    Republic of the Philippines )


    City of Tacloban )S.S.

    VERIFICATION

    I, FEDERICO L. SIXTO, of legal age, Filipino, married and a


    resident of Tacloban City, under oath hereby depose and state:

    I am the attorney-in-fact of Maria L. Sixto; I have asked our counsel


    to prepare the foregoing motion to dismiss; I have read the same and the
    contents thereof are true and correct based on documents and public records.

    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 25


    October 2019 at Tacloban City, Philippines.

    FEDERICO L. SIXTO
    Affiant

    SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 25 October 2019 at


    Tacloban City, Philippines.

    Doc. No. ___


    Page No. ___
    Book No. ___
    SERIES OF 2019
    NOTICE

    Page 3 of 4
    The Receiving Clerk
    DARAB, Tacloban City

    Please submit the foregoing motion to dismiss for the consideration


    and approval of this Honorable Adjudicator immediately upon receipt hereof
    sans oral arguments.

    GRACELLE MAE O. ORALLER

    Atty. VISPERO MAYOR


    Counsel for the Complainant
    Tacloban City

    Mssrs. Ernesto Alicando/Teodoro Yu Sy


    Counsel for the Complainants

    Please take notice that the undersigned will submit the foregoing
    motion for the consideration and approval of the Honorable Adjudicator
    immediately upon receipt hereof sans oral arguments.

    GRACELLE MAE O. ORALLER

    COPY FURNISHED: (by registered mail due to lack of messengerial


    service; disregard if personally served)

    ATTY. VISPERO LL. MAYOR


    Counsel for the Respondent CMH
    Rm. 3, 2/F Metrobank Bldg.
    P.Burgos St., Tacloban City

    Mssrs. Ernesto Alicando/Teodoro Yu Sy


    Counsel for the Complainants
    DAR Legal Division
    DAR Region 8, Tacloban City

    Page 4 of 4

    You might also like