9/15/21, 8:05 PM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly [7] Id. at 135-136. [8] Id. at 88. [9] Id. at 137-145. [10] Id. at 146, Order dated April 1, 2011. [11] Id. at 147-154. [12] Id. at 113-116. The OSG's motion for reconsideration was resolved as follows: WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration filed by the Office of the Solicitor General filed on March 23, 2011 is hereby granted. Accordingly, the decision dated August 22, 1997 is hereby reversed and set aside. The marriage of the herein parties is considered valid and subsisting. SO ORDERED. Id. at 115. [13] Id. at 88. [14] Id. at 88 & 137. [15] Id. at 89. [16] Supra note 2. The fallo of the CA's Resolution states: ACCORDINGLY, the petition for Annulment of Judgment is hereby DISMISSED OUTRIGHT. SO ORDERED. Supra at 13-14. [17] Supra at 13. [18] Rollo, pp. 155-172. [19] Supra note 3. Resolution dated July 26, 2018. [20] Supra note 1. [21] Spouses Hofer v. Yu, G.R. No. 231452, July 1, 2020. [22] Id. [23] 345 Phil. 250 (1997); as citied in Baclaran Mktg. Corp. v. Nieva, 809 Phil. 92, 99 (2017). [24] De Pedro v. Romasan Development Corp., 748 Phil. 706, 726 (2014). [25] Spouses Haler v. Yu, supra note 21. [26] 384 Phil. 661 (2000). https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/67103 5/6