30
THIRD DIVISION [G.R. No. 136456. October 24, 2000] HEIRS OF RAMON DURANO, SR., RAMON DURANO III, AND ELIZABETHHOTCHKISS DURANO, petitioners, vs. SPOUSES ANGELES SEPULVEDA UY AND EMIGDIO BING SING UY, SPOUSES FAUSTINO ALATAN AND VALERIANA GARRO, AURELIA MATA, SILVESTRE RAMOS, HERMOGENES TITO, TEOTIMO GONZALES, PRIMITIVA GARRO, JULIAN GARRO, ISMAEL GARRO, BIENVENIDO CASTRO, GLICERIO BARRIGA, BEATRIZ CALZADA, ANDREA MATA DE BATULAN, TEOFISTA ALCALA, FILEMON LAVADOR, CANDELARIO LUMANTAO, GAVINO QUIMBO, JUSTINO TITO, MARCELINO GONZALES, SALVADOR DAYDAY, VENANCIA REPASO, LEODEGARIO GONZALES, and RESTITUTA GONZALES, respondents. D E C I S I O N GONZAGA-REYES, J.: Petitioners seek the reversal of the decision of the First Division of the Court of Appeals dated November 14, 1997 in CA- G.R. CV No. 27220, entitled Heirs of Ramon Durano, Sr., et. al. versus Spouses Angeles Supelveda Uy, et. al., and the resolution of the Court of Appeals dated October 29, 1998 which denied petitioners motion for reconsideration. The antecedents of this case may be traced as far back as August 1970; it involves a 128-hectare parcel of land located in the barrios of Dunga and Cahumayhumayan, Danao City. On December 27, 1973, the late Congressman Ramon Durano, Sr., together with his son Ramon Durano III, and the latters wife, Elizabeth Hotchkiss Durano (petitioners in the herein case), instituted an

Document1

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

full case

Citation preview

THIRD DIVISION[G.R. No. 136456. October 24, 2000]HEIRS OF RAMON DURANO, SR., RAMON DURANO III, ANDEI!A"E#HHO#$H%ISS DURANO, petitioners, vs. S&OUSESANGEES SE&U'EDA U( AND EMIGDIO "ING SING U(,S&OUSES FAUS#INO AA#AN AND 'AERIANA GARRO,AUREIA MA#A, SI'ES#RE RAMOS, HERMOGENES #I#O,#EO#IMO GON!AES, &RIMI#I'AGARRO, )UIAN GARRO,ISMAEGARRO, "IEN'ENIDO$AS#RO, GI$ERIO"ARRIGA,"EA#RI!$A!ADA, ANDREAMA#ADE"A#UAN, #EOFIS#AA$AA, FIEMON A'ADOR, $ANDEARIOUMAN#AO, GA'INO *UIM"O, )US#INO #I#O, MAR$EINOGON!AES, SA'ADOR DA(DA(, 'ENAN$IA RE&ASO,EODEGARIO GON!AES, +,- RES#I#U#AGON!AES, respondents.D E $ I S I O NGON!AGA.RE(ES, J./Petitionersseekthe reversal ofthedecisionoftheFirstDivisionoftheCourt ofAppeals dated Nove!er "#$ "%%& in CA'()R) CV No) *&**+$ entitled Heirs of RaonDurano$ Sr)$ et) al) versus Spouses An,eles Supelveda -.$ et) al)$ and the resolution oftheCourt of AppealsdatedOcto!er *%$ "%%/0hichdeniedpetitionersotionforreconsideration)The antecedents of this case a. !e traced as far !ack as Au,ust "%&+1 it involvesa "*/'hectare parcelof land located in the !arrios of Dun,a and Cahua.hua.an$Danao Cit.) On Dece!er *&$ "%&2$ thelate Con,ressan Raon Durano$ Sr)$to,ether 0ithhissonRaonDuranoIII$ andthelatters0ife$ 3li4a!ethHotchkissDurano 5petitioners in the herein case6$ instituted an action for daa,es a,ainstspouses An,eles Supelveda -. and 3i,dio 7in, Sin, -.$ spouses Faustino AlatanandValeriana(arro$ spousesRufino8avador andAurelia9ata$ SilvestreRaos$Hero,enes Tito$ Teotio (on4ales$ Priitiva (arro$ :ulian (arro$ Isael (arro$7ienvenido Castro$ (licerio 7arri,a$ 7eatri4 Cal4ada$ Andrea 9ata de 7atulan$ TeofistaAlcala$ Fileon 8avador$ Candelario 8uantao$ (avino ;ui!o$ :ustino Tito$ 9arcelino(on4ales$ Salvador Da.da.$ Venancia Repaso$ 8eode,ario (on4ales$ :ose de laCal4ada$ Restituta (on4ales$ and Cose Raos 5herein respondents