G.R. No. L-24528 July 31, 1970
Domingo T. Lao, petitioner, vs. Hon. Jose Moya, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila and Lao Kang Suy, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Domingo T. Lao was the defendant in Civil Case No. 54689 for collection of sums filed by respondent Lao Kang Suy. During pre-trial, the respondent court issued an order dated April 13, 1964, upon agreement of the parties, binding Lao to sell his Hacienda Mapaya in Occidental Mindoro within four months for not less than P1,000,000.00. Failure to do so would authorize Lao Kang Suy to offer it for sale at the same minimum price, with proceeds covering the claim to be deposited in court. Lao failed to sell the property within the original and an extended period. Consequently, the court authorized Lao Kang Suy to offer the property to Independent Investment Co., Inc. for P1,000,000.00, which was accepted. The court then ordered Lao to execute the deed of sale. Lao filed a petition for certiorari to set aside the pre-trial order and subsequent orders, which this Court dismissed in a decision promulgated January 31, 1968. The pivotal factual question in that decision was whether the hacienda had already been sold by Lao to the Republic of the Philippines on August 2, 1963, before the pre-trial order. The Court initially did not accord credence to Lao’s submission on this point, noting his acquiescence to the pre-trial order and his request for an extension. Lao filed a motion for reconsideration, presenting new developments to confirm the sale to the Republic.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent court acted in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the orders complained of, in light of new matters presented in the motion for reconsideration tending to establish that the hacienda had been sold to the Republic of the Philippines prior to those orders.

RULING

The motion for reconsideration is denied, without prejudice to the petitioner’s asking the trial court to reconsider the orders complained of and submitting the new matters for its ruling. The majority of the Court held that since the primordial issue is whether the respondent court acted in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, the new matters raised in the motion for reconsideration—including developments confirming the sale of the hacienda to the Republic based on a 1963 deed, its subsequent ratification, approval of payment via negotiable land certificates, execution of an amending contract in 1969, partial payment, and the foreclosure by the Development Bank of the Philippines—should first be submitted to the trial court for its proper consideration and ruling. The resolution notes that an overriding fact appears established: the orders cannot now be legally carried out as the hacienda has been acquired by the Republic based on a sale prior to the orders. It was also manifested that the respondent had accepted this fact by seeking an alias writ of attachment against the amounts due to Lao from the Land Authority.