FACTS:

 This is a dispute between first cousins, A and B, over a house occupied

by B. It is not disputed that the original owner of the house were their
grandparents.
 A filed an action for recovery possession against B.
 According to A:
 He is supposed to be the one who owns and occupies the house
because the said house is his father’s share.
 A’s and B’s father, together with their other siblings, had an oral
partition and the said house was adjudicated to her father.
 During the course of the trial, A presented the other co-heirs as
witnesses.
 B countered that all the heirs should have been presented as
indispensable parties.
 The RTC, CA and SC ruled in favor of A based on the oral partition which
adjudicated the house to A’s father.
 B filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Supreme Court’s decision.
 The MR was denied.
 B is now before us presenting a letter which actually contains A’s
father’s declaration that he is giving the said to B.

ISSUES:

1. What are the available remedies of the client, B?

2. Whether or not a second MR can be filed.
3. Whether or not the second letter can be presented as evidence
considering that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts.
4. Whether or not filing an action for Accion Reivindicatoria will constitute
res judicata.

MY LEGAL OPINION:

1. The remedy/ies available to B are:

1.A. File a second Motion for Reconsideration.

2.B. File an action for Accion Reivindicatoria

An accion reinvindicatoria is an action to recover ownership over real

property. Article 434 of the New Civil Code provides that to successfully
maintain an action to recover the ownership of a real property, the person
who claims a better right to it must prove two things: first, the identity of
the land claimed by describing the location, area, and boundaries thereof;
and second, his title thereto.

2. Yes, a second Motion for Consideration can be filed upon leave of

court.

SECTION 3, RULE 15 OF THE INTERNAL RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT,

provides:

“Section 3. Second motion for reconsideration.

The Court shall not entertain a second motion for reconsideration,and any
exception to this rule can only be granted in the higher interest of justice by
the Court en banc upon avote of at least two-thirds of its actual
membership.

There is reconsideration “in the higher interest of justice” when the assailed
decision is not only legally erroneous, but is likewise patently unjust and
potentially capable of causing unwarranted and irremediable injury or
damage to the parties. A second motion for reconsideration can only be
entertained before the ruling sought to be reconsidered becomes final by
operation of law or by the Court’s declaration.

In the Division, a vote of three Members shall be required to elevate a

second motion for reconsideration to the Court En Banc.”

This was reiterated by no less than the Supreme Court in the celebrated
case of League of Cities v. Comelec, by saying:
“The Court shall not entertain a second motion for reconsideration,and any
exception to this rule can only be granted in the higher interest of justice by
the Court en banc upon a vote of at least two-thirds of its actual
membership.

There is reconsideration “in the higher interest of justice” when the assailed
decision is not only legally erroneous, but is likewise patently unjust and
potentially capable of causing unwarranted and irremediable injury or
damage to the parties. A second motion for reconsideration can only be
entertained before the ruling sought to be reconsidered becomes final by
operation of law or by the Court’s declaration.”

Interestingly, in the case of PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK versus CORONA,

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO and BERSAMIN, JJ. , G.R. No. 170126, the Supreme
Court enumerated the instances when a judgment or order becomes final,
to wit:

“It is settled that a judgment or order becomes final upon the lapse of the period to appeal, without
an appeal being perfected or a motion for reconsideration being filed.”

Similarly, in the case of SYSTRA PHILIPPINES, INC. vs. CORONA, AZCUNA and GARCIA, JJ.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, G.R. No. 176290 September 21, 2007, the Supreme
Court held that:

“A second motion for reconsideration is forbidden except for extraordinarily persuasive reasons,
and only upon express leave first obtained.”

2. A. Grounds for Motion for Reconsideration

Under our rules of procedure, a party adversely affected by a decision of a trial court may move for
reconsideration thereof on the following grounds:

(a) the damages awarded are excessive;

(b) the evidence is insufficient to justify the decision; or
(c) the decision is contrary to law. (Marina Properties Corporation v. Court of Appeals)

3. Yes, the second letter can be presented as evidence even considering that the Supreme
Court is not a trier of facts.

In Development Bank of the Philippines v. Traders Royal Bank, the Supreme Court had the occasion
to rule that:

“The jurisdiction of the Court in cases brought before it from the appellate
court is limited to reviewing errors of law, and findings of fact of the Court
of Appeals are conclusive upon the Court since it is not the Courts function
to analyze and weigh the evidence all over again.

Nevertheless, in several cases, the Court enumerated the exceptions to the

rule that factual findings of the Court of Appeals are binding on the Court:

(1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or

conjectures;
(2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible;
(3) when there is grave abuse of discretion;
(4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;
(5) when the findings of fact are conflicting;
(6) when in making its findings the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues
of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the
appellant and the appellee;
(7) when the findings are contrary to that of the trial court;
(8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence
on which they are based;
(9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioners main
and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent;
(10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of
evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; or
(11) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts
not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a
different conclusion.”

4. No, filing of Accion Reivindicatoria will not constitute res judicata.

In the case of FELICIDAD JAVIER vs. HON. REGINO T. VERIDIANO II, Presiding Judge, Branch
I, Court of First Instance of Zambales and REINO ROSETE, G.R. No. L-48050 October 10, 1994, the
Supreme Court ruled that:

“Accion reivindicatoria or accion de reivindicacion is thus an action whereby plaintiff alleges

ownership over a parcel of land and seeks recovery of its full possession. It is different from accion
interdictal or accion publiciana where plaintiff merely alleges proof of a better right to possess
without claim of title.

In Civil Case No. 926 petitioner merely claimed a better right or prior possession over the disputed
area without asserting title thereto. It should be distinguished from Civil Case No. 2203-0 where she
expressly alleged ownership, specifically praying that she be declared the rightful owner and given
possession of the disputed portion. Hence, in Civil Case No. 926 petitioner merely alleged that she
was "the true, lawful (possessor) and in actual, prior physical possession" of the subject parcel of
land, whereas in CivilCaseNo. 2203-0 she asserted that she was "the absolute owner in fee simple" of
the parcel of land "covered by Original Transfer Certificate of Title No. P-3259."

The complaint in Civil Case No. 2203-0 definitely raises the question of ownership and clearly gives
defendants therein notice of plaintiff's claim of exclusive and absolute ownership, including the right
to possess which is an elemental attribute of such ownership. Thus, this Court has ruled that a
judgment in forcible entry or detainer case disposes of no other issue than possession and declares
only who has the right of possession, but by no means constitutes a bar to an action for
determination of who has the right or title of ownership. ”