G.R. No. L-30380 October 21, 1974
LEONARDO GALEON, petitioner, vs. MARCIAL GALEON, ZOSIMA GALEON-CANDA, MATEO GALEON, and COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF QUEZON, BRANCH II, LUCENA CITY, respondents.

FACTS

This case originated from a dispute over the partition of inherited properties among siblings. Petitioner Leonardo Galeon filed an action for partition against his siblings, the private respondents, before the Court of First Instance of Quezon. The trial court rendered a decision, and upon appeal, the Supreme Court issued a decision on February 28, 1973, ruling in favor of the petitioner and ordering the partition. The dispositive portion of that 1973 decision included an order for private respondents to pay the costs of the suit.
Subsequently, the private respondents filed a motion for reconsideration of the Supreme Court’s February 28, 1973 decision. They sought a reversal of the substantive ruling and, alternatively, requested relief from the imposition of costs. The Supreme Court, in this present Resolution dated October 21, 1974, addresses that motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE

The primary issue for resolution is whether the motion for reconsideration of the February 28, 1973 decision should be granted. A subsidiary issue is whether the private respondents should be held liable for the costs of the litigation.

RULING

The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, denied the motion for reconsideration. The Court upheld its decision of February 28, 1973, thereby affirming the right of the petitioner to the partition of the properties. The legal logic is rooted in the finality of judgments and the principle of res judicata. The Court, having already thoroughly examined the merits of the case in its prior decision, found no compelling reason or new argument in the motion that warranted a reversal or modification of its substantive findings on the right to partition.
However, the Court exercised its equitable discretion regarding the award of costs. While the general rule under the Rules of Court is that costs are awarded to the prevailing party, the Court has the inherent power to adjudge costs otherwise for equitable reasons. Recognizing that the parties are siblings embroiled in a familial dispute over inheritance, the Court deemed it proper, for the sake of equity and to avoid further animosity, to absolve the private respondents from the payment of costs. Consequently, the Court ordered the deletion of the phrase “Costs against private respondents” from the dispositive portion of the February 28, 1973 judgment. This modification reflects a balance between adjudicating legal rights and administering justice with compassion in intra-family litigation.