[ G.R. Nos.27860 & 27896. September 30, 1975 ] 160-A Phil. 344; 72 OG 4712 (May 3, 1976)
EN BANC
[ G.R. Nos.27860 & 27896. September 30, 1975 ]
PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL BANK, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE TESTATE ESTATE OF CHARLES NEWTON HODGES (SP. PROC. NO. 1672 OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ILOILO), PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE VENICIO ESCOLIN, PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ILOILO, BRANCH II, AND AVELINA A. MAGNO, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NOS. L-27936 & L-27937. SEPTEMBER 30, 1975] TESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE UNNIE JANE HODGES (SP. PROC. NO. 1307). TESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE CHARLES NEWTON HODGES (SP. PROC. NO. 1672) PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL BANK, ADMINISTRATOR-APPELLANT, VS. LORENZO CARLES, JOSE PABLICO, ALFREDO CATEDRAL, SALVADOR GUZMAN, BELCESAR CAUSING, FLORENIA BARRIDO, PURIFICACION CORONADO, GRACIANO LUCERO, ARITEO THOMAS JAMIR, MELQUIADES BATISANAN, PEPITO IYULORES, ESPERIDION PARTISALA, WINIFREDO ESPADA, ROSARIO ALINGASA, ADELFA PREMAYLON, SANTIAGO PACAONSIS, AND AVELINA MAGNO, THE LAST AS ADMINISTRATRIX IN SP. PROC. NO. 1307, APPELLEES, WESTERN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, INC., MOVANT-APPELLEE. R E S O L U T I O N
BARREDO, J.:
Motion for reconsideration followed by a supplemental motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner-appellant Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank and motion for modification filed by Joe Hodges and “the other heirs of Charles Newton Hodges” in regard to the decision of this Court of March 29, 1974. Upon consideration of said motions, the Court has not found any new matter therein sufficiently persuasive to induce a modification of its judgment, for which reason, the Court, with its members reaffirming their previous opinions and votes, resolved unanimously to DENY as it hereby DENIES the motions for reconsideration and modification above referred to. Anent the motion of respondent-appellee Avelina Magno for the assessment of the damages she claims she and the Estate Linnie Jane Hodges have suffered by reason of the preliminary injunction in this case which was lifted per resolution of the Court of September 8, 1972, the Court resolved to authorize trial court to make the assessment prayed for, subject to appeal, to this Court, if necessary. Considering the substantial value of the subject estates the length of time they have already been pendingjudicial settlement and for the reason that the payment of the corresponding taxes thereon arc being unduly delayed, and also because the properties of said estates have to be disposed in favor of Filipinos before May 27, 1976, the Court enjoins the parties to exert all efforts to have the inventories of said states finalized without further delay, and if possible to extrajudicially settle their remaining differences to further complications, expenses and unnecessary loss time. The respondent court is directed to expedite processing by giving due priority thereto, requiring.the parties to submit the inventories within thirty days from notice hereof, and to resolve the remaining issues as delineated in the Court’s decision and to close the proceedings upon payment of the corresponding taxes within three months from notice hereof. Respondent judge is further directed to report to this Court from time to time the action taken by him hereon. Castro, Acting C.J., Ferrando, Muñoz Palma, Aquino, and Martin, JJ., concur. Teehankee, J., files a separate opinion. Makasiar, J., concurs in the separate opinion of Mr. Justice Teehankee. Antonio, J., concurs in the denial of the motions for reconsideration and modification and, in the separate opinion of Justice Teehankee. Makalintal, C.J, Esguerra and Concepcion Jr., JJ., are on leave.