345 Phil. 810; 94 OG No. 32, 5567 (August 10, 1998)
HERMOSISIMA, JR., J.:
"I
Re: Motion for Clarification
1.1 Without meaning to be fastidious, the Pascual Heirs find the Decision promulgated by the Honorable court on 12 February 1997 ('Decision') confusing.
1.1.1 The dispositive portion of the decision 'DENIED and DISMISSED' the petition for review filed by petitioners Heirs of Emiliano Navarro ('Navarro Heirs'). This ordinarily means that the appealed decision of the then Intermediate Appellate Court was affirmed. Consequently, Pascual heirs are apparently entitled to the issuance of a decree of registration over the subject land.
1.1.2. In the body of the Decision, however, this Honorable Court declared the subject land part of the public domain, not capable of appropriation by any private person, including the Pascual Heirs, 'except through express authorization granted in due form by a competent authority'.
xxx xxx xxx
1.4. It is in this light that the Pascual Heirs now move that this Honorable Court clarify x x x the dispositive portion of the Decision x x x.II
Re: Motion for Reconsideration
2.1. Should this Honorable Court clarify that the Decision actually reversed, not affirmed, the appealed decision of the then Intermediate Appellate Court, the Pascual Heirs respectfully submit that the Decision should be reconsidered.
xxx xxx xxx
2.3.Since the Decision was mainly, if not entirely, based on the x x x seriously flawed findings of the Trial Court and justice Serrano's dissenting opinion in the appealed decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court, the infirmity of the Trial Court's and Justice Serrano's purported findings equally plague the Decision.
xxx xxx xxxIII
Re: Motion to Remand for further Proceedings
xxx xxx xxx
3.3. Should this Honorable Court, however, find the need for more scientific or empirical data, the Pascual Heirs submit that it becomes appropriate to remand the case to the Trial Court for further reception of the appropriate evidence.
x x x" (Rollo, pp. 408-411)
"WHEREFORE, the instant Petition for Review is hereby DENIED and DISMISSED.
Costs against petitioners
SO ORDERED,"
"WHEREFORE, the instant Petition for Review is hereby GRANTED.
The decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court (now Court of Appeals) in CA G.R. No. 59044-R dated November 29, 1978 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The resolutions dated November 21, 1980 and March 28, 1982, respectively, promulgated by the Intermediate Appellate Court are likewise REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
The decision of the Court of First Instance (now the Regional Trial Court), Branch 1, Balanga, Bataan, is hereby ORDERED REINSTATED.
Costs against private respondents.
SO ORDERED."