REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

11th Judicial Region

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 34
Panabo City, Davao del Norte

WILFREDO GONZALES AND

OSCAR Q. CABUÑAS, JR.,
Represented by: Niel John A. Villarico
Plaintiffs,

- versus - Civil Case No. 48-2019

FOR: QUIETING OF TITLE

CARMEN ALEDRO-RUÑA,
Defendant.
x------------------------------------------------x

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(of Resolution dated June 23, 2021)
Plaintiffs, assisted by the undersigned counsel, and unto this Honorable
Court most respectfully move for the reconsideration of its RESOLUTION dated
June 23, 2021, a copy of which was received on September 27, 2021; and in
support thereof respectfully aver the following:

PREFATORY STATEMENT

1. Plaintiffs received on 15 September 2021 a Motion for Issuance of

Certificate of Finality and Entry of Judgment by the Defendant
through her counsel for the Resolution issued on June 23, 2021;

2. The undersigned counsel, however, did not receive the said Resolution
from the Honorable Court and only learn the existence of such upon
receiving the above-mentioned Motion by the Defendant;

3. It was only on September 27, 2021 when the undersigned counsel,

through an office staff, acquired the copy of the Resolution from the
court;

Motion for Reconsideration Page 1 of 7

4. The undersigned counsel wished to inform the Honorable Court that
the JOVES-BOJA LAW OFFICE was in irregular office schedule
since June 19, 2021 when Atty. Marilda Boja underwent a knee
operation due to total tear of quadricep tendons and only resumed
reporting to office on September 1, 2021;

5. The Honorable Court resolved the Motion to Dismiss of the defendant

and ordered the dismissal of the case on the ground that the action is
barred by a prior judgment of Civil Case No. 41-2005. The dispositive
portion of the said Resolution reads as follows:

“Nevertheless, the case is hereby ordered DISMISSED on the

ground that the action is barred by a prior judgment of Civil
Case No. 41-2005. XXX”

6. The Honorable Court exhaustively discussed that since in the present

case has all the essential elements of res judicata in the concept of bar
by prior judgment, the Court is proscribed to litigate anew the herein
case;

GROUNDS FOR THE FILING OF THE MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

I. Ownership of the subject property was validly transferred to the

Plaintiffs.
II. Ringor (second buyer) already had vested right over the property
when the action for annulment was filed.
III. The court who rendered the prior judgment had no jurisdiction over
the parties.
IV. Defendant was barred by laches.

Ownership of the subject

property was validly
transferred to the Plaintiffs.

7. At the onset, the Plaintiffs acquired title to the property in the series of
various sales originating from the Defendant’s predecessor-in-interest.

Motion for Reconsideration Page 2 of 7

 The timeline of the circumstances surrounding the acquisition of the
title of the property can be summarized as follows:

 1981 – Sale between Segundo Aledro to Advento

 1982- Sale from Advento to Ringor
 2007- Declaration of the nullity of the first sale between
Aledro and Advento
 2012- Sale between Ringor and the herein Plaintiffs;

8. It is worth noting that all of these sales transactions are considered

consummated despite the absence of the registration of the sales before
the proper registry office due to constructive delivery of the property to
the vendees of each sale transactions. Under our law and jurisprudence,
in contract of sale, title passes to the vendee upon the delivery of the
thing sold1. This is where sale is consummated. And, together with the
execution of the Deed of Sale, the delivery of the original copy of the
Owner’s Duplicate Copy of the Certificate of title is considered a
constructive delivery;

9. It is established that one can sell only what one owns or is authorized to
sell, and the buyer can acquire no more right than what the seller can
transfer legally.2 Nemo dat quod non habet;

10.The second sale between Advento to Ringor in 1982 is a valid sale for
first, the sale was made when the first sale was not yet declared null and
void, second, Ringor is an innocent purchaser and for value and finally,
Ringor was not impleaded for the action to nullify the deed of sale
between Aledro and Advento. Rignor could have no knowledge of the
nullity and thus, cannot be bound thereby for the nullity of the first deed
of sale;

11.Advento, during the sale of the subject land to Ringor, was the owner of
the subject property. Such ownership was validly and properly
transferred to Ringor in the second sale of 1982. There was no action for
the nullity of the first sale at that time nor any disturbance to the
possession of Advento in the subject property. Consequently, therefore,
at the time the plaintiffs bought the property from Ringor, Plaintiffs
acquire no more right than what the owner Ringor can transfer legally;

12.The second sale was made in 1982. The action for the nullity of the deed
of sale for the first sale commenced only in 2000’s or over twenty (20)
1
Perez vs Rasaceṅa, et al., (GR 211539, Oct. 17, 2016)
2
Tolentino, et al. vs Spouses Latagan G.R. No. 179874, June 22, 2015 citing Rufloe v. Burgos

Motion for Reconsideration Page 3 of 7

 years from the first sale. In between those years, 1981 to 2007, Ringor
was already occupying the subject property in the concept of an owner.
Defendant’s predecessor-in-interest could have easily impleaded the
current possessor of the land at that time for the clear determination of
the ownership of the subject property. Unfortunately, the only impleaded
the first buyer Mario Advento, who, at that time, was no longer the owner
and possessor of the land in question. What’s worse, Mario Advento was
not able to present his case in the annulment case and was declared in
default. Equally worse, the one who sought for the annulment of the sale
was not the original vendor Segundo Aledro himself, who have been long
dead since, but his wife who was not a party to the assailed sale;

II

Ringor (second buyer) already

had vested right over
the property when the
action for annulment was filed.

13.Defendant would expectedly argue that there is no need to implead

Ringor since the action for annulment of deed of sale is a personal action
and the only real party in interest is the vendee Advento. The same line
of argument would suggest that the action for annulment, being a
personal action, would not affect the vested right already acquired by
Ringor at the commencement of the action;

14.By the time Ringor sold the subject property to the herein Plaintiffs in
2012, he remains to be the valid owner of the subject property as he was
not aware of the nullity of the first sale. It follows therefore, that when
the Plaintiffs bought the property from Ringor, they are also considered
innocent purchasers in good faith and for value—having acquired the
property from the owner of such property;

15.In Torres v. Caluag3, the Supreme Court held that a real litigant may be
held bound as a party even if not formally impleaded because he had his
day in court and because her substantial rights were not prejudiced. In the
prior case of annulment of deed of sale however, the circumstance is
otherwise different. Herein plaintiffs, and even the defendant in the said
case, did not have the opportunity to present their case in court. Clearly,
their substantial rights were prejudiced;

III
3
G.R. No. L-20906. July 30, 1966.

Motion for Reconsideration Page 4 of 7

 The court who rendered
the prior judgment had
no jurisdiction over the parties.

16.While it is improper to discuss herein the validity of the decision of Civil

Case 41-2005, since it cannot be attacked collaterally, it is respectfully
prayed for the Honorable Court to take into consideration that such
judgment is void for having acquired no jurisdiction over the person
of the then defendant Mario Advento;

17.An action to annul a deed of sale is an action in personam. In actions in

personam, jurisdiction over the person (defendant) is required. It is a
proceeding to enforce personal rights and obligations brought against the
person, and is based on the jurisdiction of the person, although it may
involve his right to, or the exercise of ownership of, specific property, or
seek to compel him to control or dispose of it in accordance with the
mandate of the court. The purpose is to impose through the judgment of a
court, some responsibility or liability directly upon the person of the
defendant. No other than the defendant is liable, not the whole world, as
in an action for annulment of deed of sale;

18.The distinction is important to determine whether or not jurisdiction over

the person of the defendant is required and consequently to determine the
type of summons to be employed. Jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant is necessary for the court to validly try and decide a case
against said defendant where the action is one in personam but not where
the action is in rem or quasi in rem;

19.A reading from the decision under Civil Case 41-2005 will disclose that
the defendant Advento was “declared in default despite publication of
the summons.” Clearly, by serving summon via publication, and not
through personal or substituted service, the court did not acquire
jurisdiction of the person of the defendant;
20. Where the action is in personam and the defendant is in the Philippines,
as in that prior case (Civil Case 41-2005), the service of summons may
be done by personal or substituted service as laid out in Sections 6 and 7
of Rule 14. Indeed, the preferred mode of service of summons is personal
service4. Failure to serve summons will mean that the court failed to
acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant5;

4
Frias vs. Alcayde G.R. No. 194262 February 28, 2018.
5
De Pedro vs. Romasan Development Corp. G.R. No. 194751, November 26, 2014

Motion for Reconsideration Page 5 of 7

 21.Verily, being in personam, the judgment in question is null and void for
lack of jurisdiction over the person. The prior judgment, therefore, could
not be a bar to the present action of quieting of title;

IV

Defendant was barred by laches.

22.To reiterate, the first sale between Defendant’s predecessor-in-interest

and Mario Advento was made in 1981. It is only more than twenty (20)
years and only when the original vendor, Segundo Aledro, had been long
dead that Sofia Aledro filed for the annulment of such sale. During the
filing of annulment action, the subject property had already been owned
and possessed by Ringor, the plaintiffs’ predecessor-in-interest;

23.Despite the fact that defendant had constructive knowledge of the

subsequent sale of the subject property to innocent purchasers (since the
latter was already possessing the property and the original copy of the
Certificate of Title was the basis of the sale and delivery of the object of
the sale), they did not assert their right on time and during the lifetime of
the vendor Segundo Aledro. Their filing of the action for the annulment
of the deed of sale is, thus, barred by laches;

24.Failure to take steps to assert any rights over a disputed land for over
twenty (20) years from the sale thereof is fatal to the then plaintiff’s
cause of action on the ground of laches. Laches is the failure or neglect,
for an unreasonable length of time to do that which by exercising due
diligence could or should have been done, earlier; it is negligence or
omission to assert a right within a reasonable time warranting a
presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or
declined to assert it (Bailon-Casilao v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
78178, April 15, 1988; Villamor v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 41508,
June 27, 1988).

PRAYER

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable

Court that the Resolution, dated June 23, 2021, dismissing the instant case be
REVERSED and SET ASIDE and that the trial on the merits for the action for
Quieting of Title be continued.

Motion for Reconsideration Page 6 of 7

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

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

Tagum City (for Panabo City), Davao del Norte, Philippines. October 08,
2021.

By:

LYNDON MELVI C. SUMI-OG

Counsel for the Plaintiff
Roll No. 74318
PTR No. 264399 Jan. 04, 2021
IBP No. 15374 Jan. 19, 2021
TIN: 288-886-690-000
Mobile Number: 0915-426-3958
Email: [email protected]

Copy furnished:

Atty. Lucilo B. Sarona, Jr.

Counsel for the Defendant
SARONA & SARONA-LOZARE
LAW OFFICE
Suite 101, JMS Bldg.,
88 Maya St., Ecoland,
Matina, Davao City

Motion for Reconsideration Page 7 of 7