Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
617
PUNO, J.:
_______________
619
The petition
2
for certiorari was initially denied by this
Court in its Resolution of May 17, 1993 for noncompliance
with our Revised Circular 1–88, for raising factual issues
and for lack of reversible3 error committed by the
respondent Court of Appeals. The Court also denied with
finality petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration in a
Resolution dated July 14, 1993. The motion raised no
substantial argument and the Court found no compelling
reason to grant it.
On August 23, 1993, however, petitioner filed a Motion
for Leave to file a Second Motion for Reconsideration. He
argued, among others, that even assuming the correctness
of the factual findings of the respondent Court of Appeals,
still, there could not be any coownership of the subject
property. The Court required private respondent to
comment and, in its Resolution of August 22, 1994, granted
the Motion “in the interest of justice and considering the
crucial importance of the issue of extinguishment
4
of co
ownership” and gave due course to the petition. Extensive
memoranda were then filed by the parties,
We find no merit in the petition.
We sustain the finding of the respondent court that the
subject property is coowned by petitioner and private
respondent. This finding is based on the admission made
by petitioner himself in his Affidavit (Exh. “A”) dated
March 2, 1973, which states:
_______________
620
“A F F I D A V I T
621
_______________
622
623
Judgment affirmed.
_______________
624
——o0o——