04/02/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly IX. IN DENYING PETITIONERS' CLAIM FOR DAMAGES THE COURT A QUO HAS OVERLOOKED AND IGNORED THE UNCONTRADICTED FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE.[42] Initially, this petition was denied in a Resolution[43] dated February 3, 2003 for noncompliance with the Rules of Court, to wit: ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolved to DENY the petition for review on certiorari of the decision dated April 24, 2002 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 46222 for failure to comply with requirement no. three (3), as the copy of the assailed decision submitted is not duly certified as a true copy thereof. Also, it lacks a written explanation why the service or filing thereof was not done personally [Section 11, Rule 13, Rules of Civil Procedure]. In any event, even if the petition complied with the aforesaid requirements, it would still be denied, as petitioners failed to show that a reversible error had been committed by the appellate court. The petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration[44] on March 19, 2003, which this Court denied with finality on April 7, 2003.[45] On June 2, 2003, the petitioners filed a Motion to Admit Second Motion for Reconsideration with their Second Motion for Reconsideration, wherein their "pro bono" counsels pleaded for leniency for "their shortcomings."[46] From June 2 to 20, 2003, the Court received several pleadings[47] from various lawyers who were entering their appearances as collaborating pro bono counsels for the petitioners and who manifested that they were adopting the Second Motion for Reconsideration filed on June 2, 2003. On June 9, 2003, the Bishop of the Apostolic Vicariate of Taytay, Palawan, also wrote then Chief Justice Hilario Davide to plead for the admission of the Second Motion for Reconsideration filed by the petitioners, whom he claimed were under his pastoral jurisdiction as he was their parish priest in 1977-1978 and 1985-1989.[48] In consideration of all the above pleadings, in a Resolution dated June 25, 2003, this Court resolved to: (1) grant the petitioners' motion to admit their Second Motion for Reconsideration; (2) set aside its February 3, 2003 Resolution; (3) reinstate the present petition; (4) require the respondent to comment to the petition; and (5) note the other pleadings and letters filed before it.[49] In the meantime, on March 25, 2008, pursuant to Republic Act No. 8371, entitled "The Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act of 1997," the Office of the President, through the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP),[50] issued a Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT) No. R04-BUS-0308-062[51] over 3,683.2324 hectares of land in the Municipality of Busuanga, Province of Palawan, in favor of the Tagbanua Indigenous Cultural Community, which comprised the commumties of Barangays Calauit and Quezon, Calauit Island, and Municipality of Busuanga. The pertinent portions of the CADT read as follows: elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61037 9/19