Republic of the Philippines

Court of Appeals
Mindanao Station

FORMER SPECIAL TWENTY-FIRST DIVISION

Cagayan de Oro City

HEIRS OF NICANOR PABIONA CA-G.R. CV NO. 79246

REPRESENTED BY AGUSTIA VDA. DE
PABIONA, DR. NICK PABIONA, STARLET Members:
ELEANOR P. GONZAGA, ATTY. JOCELYN
P. REYES, PERCIVAL PABIONA, MA. BORJA, Chairman,
LYNETTE P. KOTAH, MA. MAYBELLE LLOREN, and
PABIONA AND SHERRY MYLA PABIONA, *
MANAHAN, JJ.
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
Promulgated:
- versus -

RICARDO MARTIN, SR., SPOUSES ______________

MELECIO C. CARAG, JR., AND
AURORA E. CARAG AND DEPUTY
LAND INSPECTOR USMAN A.
MAMOGKAT,
Defendants-Appellees.

RESOLUTION

BORJA, R.V., J.:

We note the following: 1. Returned copy of the July 29, 2011

Minute Resolution addressed to appellee Melecio Carag, with notation
“Deceased”; 1
2. Returned Copy of the July 29, 2011 Minute Resolution
addressed to Usman Mamogcat, DENR, Midsayap, Cotabato, with

*
Designated 3rd Member vice J. Hernando per raffle dated July 5, 2011.
1
Rollo, p. 148.
CA-G.R.CV NO. 79246 Page 2 of 5
RESOLUTION

notation, “Party Retired”; 2

3. Returned Copy of the July 29, 2011 Minute
Resolution with attached copy of the January 14, 2011 Decision addressed
to the appellee Aurora Carag with notation “Deceased”; 3 4. Opposition to
the Motion for Reconsideration; 4
and 5. Attorney Lizanilla J. Amarga’s
“Formal Entry of Appearance with Manifestation & Prayer” where she
alleges that –

XXX

6. In view of the death of Atty. Melencio C. Carag and the need

to see this case finally and completely resolved, undersigned
counsel, at the behest of Dr. Hector San Juan and Atty. Rogelio N.
Borromeo, is entering her appearance as new counsel for this case;

7. Undersigned counsel most respectfully request the Most

Honorable Court that her appearance be noted in the records of the
case and that she be furnished with the subsequent notices, orders
and other processes of the Honorable Court at the indicated address
below:

2nd Floor Gonzalo-Chavez Building

Capistrano-Neri Streets
Cagayan de Oro City, 9000

8. as the services of undersigned was only engaged last

September 10, 2011, and she just found out that the original party
defendant Ricardo Martin, Sr. is already deceased and have been
outlasted by this case together with his counsel Atty. Melecio Carag
also deceased, she humbly begs the indulgence of this Honorable
Court to grant her the thirty (30) day period or until October 10,
2011 to formally file a Notice of Death and Motion for Substitution
together with the Confirmation Letter Authority of Arturo S. Martin
as Legal Representative of the Martin Family signed by the heirs of
Ricardo Martin, Sr., in compliance with Rule 3 Section 16 of the
Rules of Court;

9. Also, it was only on September 10, 2011 that undersigned

counsel received a copy of an order sent by the Court of Appeals-
Mindanao Division Clerk of Court dated July 29, 2011 that there
was already a Decision on this case dated January 14, 2011 but the
copy intended for the Appellees was returned considering the
death of Atty. Carag. Thus, the undersigned counsel is humbly
requesting that this copy be sent to her above-indicated address;
and

2
Rollo, p. 195.
3
Rollo, p. 214.
4
Rollo, p. 311.
CA-G.R.CV NO. 79246 Page 3 of 5
RESOLUTION

10. Also, in the same July 29, 2011 Court of Appeal’s order, it
directed the Appellants to furnish the Appellees a copy of their
Motion for Reconsideration to the above January 14, 2011 Decision.
Thus, the undersigned counsel is humbly requesting the Appellants
to comply with the same and to send the copy of her above-
indicated address.

XXX. 5

We now address the following:

1) Notice of Death and Motion for Substitution; and

2) Motion for Reconsideration.

In the “Notice of Death and Motion for Substitution”, appellees,

through counsel, allege that –

1. The principal defendant-appellee Ricardo Martin, Sr. and

co-defendant-appellee as well as counsel for this case Atty. Melecio
C. Carag, Jr., both, unfortunately, died before they could personally
witness the actual finality, dismissal and termination of this civil
case. Thus, the undersigned counsel humbly submits this Notice of
Death to this Most Honorable Court of Appeals together with the
Death Certificate of Ricardo Martin Sr. and Death Certificate of
Atty. Melecio Carag, Jr.;

2. Defendant-appellee Ricardo Martin, Sr. is now survived

thorugh his heirs who include: (1) Ricardo S. Martin, Jr., (2) Arturo
S. Martin, (3) Alicia Martin-Yambao, (4) Gerardo S. Martin, (5)
Enrico Martin, (6) Divina Martin Luna, (7) Lorna Martin-Ranada,
and (9) Martin Santarinala;

3. Considering that all of the Heirs of Ricardo Martin Sr. are

now presently in the United States of America except for one
sibling, they have executed separate letters and special powers of
attorney documents to effect the following:

3.a. Legally and validly appoint Arturo S. Martin, with

residence at 2417 Riverside Drive, Los Angeles, California, USA,
90030, as the legal representative of the Martin Family in the above-
captioned case;

5
Rollo, pp. 119 – 121.
CA-G.R.CV NO. 79246 Page 4 of 5
RESOLUTION

3.b. Appointing Dr. Hector San Juan of Xavier Estates,

Cagayan de Oro to be the Attorney-in-fact in this instant case; and

3.c. Fully authorizing Atty. Rogelio N. Borromeo or any of

his law partners to be the lawyer/lawyers to represent them in this
case;

WHEREOFORE, premises considered and in compliance with

Rule 3 Section 16of the Rules of Court, it is most respectfully and
humbly prayed of this Most Honorable Court that an order be
issued directing the substitution of the deceased defendant –
appellee Ricardo Martin, Sr. by his heirs through their family
representative Arturo S. Martin who formally appointed Dr. Hector
San Juan as his attorney-in-fact and duly authorized Atty. Rogelio
Borromeo and any of his law partners, including the undersigned,
to be the counsels for the defendant-appellees, including the
undersigned, to be the counsels for the defendant-appellees in this
case. 6

We find merit in the motion for substitution of the appellees, and

thus, GRANTS the same.

On appellants’ February 25, 2011 motion for reconsideration of Our

January 14, 2011 Decision, 7
We find that the grounds relied upon by
appellant-movant have already been considered and ruled upon by Us in
the assailed Decision. Appellants having failed to present new arguments
to warrant reversal of Our ruling, the instant motion for reconsideration is
hereby DENIED.

ROMULO V. BORJA
Associate Justice

6
Rollo, pp. 149 – 151.
7
Rollo, pp. 93 – 97.
CA-G.R.CV NO. 79246 Page 5 of 5
RESOLUTION

WE CONCUR:

EDGARDO T. LLOREN CARMELITA SALANDANAN MA-

Associate Justice NAHAN
Associate Justice