Dee v. Alba

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 181535. August 17, 2016.]

EDUARDO R. DEE, petitioner, vs. ALBA, HORTENCIANA, ARCILLA TERESITA/MARIANO ARINO JOSE, BENITO BAGASPOSRO, FELICIANA BALARES, PEDRO BALBUENA, ET AL., respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames:

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated August 17, 2016, which reads as follows:

G.R. No. 181535 — EDUARDO R. DEE, Petitioner, v. ALBA, HORTENCIANA, ARCILLA TERESITA/MARIANO ARINO JOSE, BENITO BAGASPOSRO, FELICIANA BALARES, PEDRO BALBUENA, ET AL., Respondents.

Evidence that is not newly discovered may not be used as a ground to conduct a new trial to reopen a final decision. Such evidence is forgotten evidence.

The Case

In this appeal, the petitioner assails the adverse decision promulgated on August 30, 2007, 1 and the ensuing resolution promulgated on January 29, 2008, 2 whereby the Court of Appeals respectively affirmed the decision rendered on April 11, 2001 by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Pili, Camarines Sur in Civil Case No. P-2018, an action for quieting of title, recovery of ownership and possession, and damages. 3

Antecedents

The CA summarized the factual and procedural antecedents in its assailed decision as follows:

On October 12, 1995, a multitude of 520 persons filed a Complaint for Quieting of Title, Recovery of Ownership and Possession with Damages with the Regional Trial Court of Pili, Camarines Sur, Branch 31 (the court a quo) against Eduardo Dee (herein defendant-appellant). Plaintiffs-appellees alleged that they were purchasers-owners of burial lots located at the Divine Heart Memorial Park in Anayan, Pili, Camarines Sur. Although 520 persons were named in the caption of the complaint, plaintiffs-appellees only listed 229 owners of "family type" lots, 118 owners of "kennedy type" lots, 67 owners of "lawn type" lots and 76 "mausoleum type" lots, or a total of 490 lot owners. The plaintiffs-appellees appointed and designated their co-plaintiff Florence Navida, as their attorney-in-fact. DETACa

Plaintiffs-appellees further alleged that they acquired their respective lots by purchase from a certain Conrado Colarina, the owner/proprietor of the Divine Heart Memorial Park; that sometime in December 1996, defendant-appellant took over the administration and management of the memorial park and claimed that he was the new owner thereof; that they requested defendant-appellant to respect their rights as memorial lot owners but defendant-appellant refused and continuously refuses to respect them.

In his Answer which was filed on December 17, 1996, defendant-appellant denied the averments in the complaint and alleged, among others, that the memorial lots in question were part of a vast estate covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 14786 in the name of Conrado Colarina; that by virtue of an alias writ of execution which was granted by the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 153 in Civil Case No. 53566, the said vast property was levied on February 14, 1990 and sold at public auction on May 22, 1990 to defendant-appellant being the highest bidder; that for failure of Conrado Colarina to redeem the said property, defendant-appellant was issued an Officer's Final Deed of Sale and became the owner of the Divine Heart Memorial Park. In addition, defendant-appellant denied having committed any act or acts to disturb plaintiffs-appellees' proprietary rights, title or interest over the subject memorial lots.

The complaint, however, was initially dismissed by the court a quo for failure of the parties and their counsels to appear when the case was called for pre-trial on February 21, 1997. On motion of the plaintiffs-appellees, however, the order of dismissal was reconsidered and set aside in an Order dated March 17, 1997.

After several postponements, pre-trial pushed through on August 7, 1998 and was concluded on September 28, 1998. The appearance of a certain Atty. Reynaldo L. Herrera as counsel for the plaintiffs-appellees was initially questioned due to his failure to show a special power of attorney executed by the plaintiffs he allegedly represented. It appears that plaintiffs-appellees' previous attorney-in-fact, Florence Navida, withdrew from her duty as such when, in a personal letter addressed to the presiding judge, she confessed that she "was only made as an instrument by Mr. Colarina to file this case against Mr. Dee. [She] was instructed to recruit more people to disguise that they are 'lot buyers' in order filled (sic) up the vacant space.

On January 17, 1999, plaintiffs-appellees filed a Compliance with Motion to Admit Amended Complaint. Seventy-eight (78) more plaintiffs were added, with corresponding increase in the number of alleged owners of "family type" lots from 229 to 270, in the number of alleged owners of "kennedy type" lots from 118 to 138, and in the number of alleged owners of "mausoleum type" lots from 76 to 93. On February 8, 1999, defendant-appellant filed his Comment/Objection to the Motion to Admit Amended Complaint and stated that out of the additional plaintiffs, sixteen (16) were fake and thirty-three (33) had cancelled contracts.

The amended complaint was admitted by the court a quo in an Order dated April 30, 1999. With the admission of the amended complaint, the court a quo scheduled anew the pre-trial and trial. Also, the court recognized plaintiffs-appellees' new attorney-in-fact in the person of a certain Ricardo Colarina.

During the trial, plaintiffs-appellees presented Rechilda Colarina, Marcelina Balang and Jesus Florece who invariably testified that purchase agreements and certificates of ownership over memorial lots at the Divine Heart Memorial Park were issued to numerous buyers, and these purchase agreements were signed before defendant-appellant became the new owner of the memorial park.

On March 24, 2000, plaintiffs-appellees filed a Motion for Issuance of a Restraining Order and Writ of Prohibitory Injunction, seeking to prevent the rumored sale of the subject lots to the Philippine National Police (PNP). Meanwhile, on March 31, 2000, defendant-appellant filed a Motion for Leave to File Demurrer to Evidence on the ground that, based on the facts and the law, the plaintiffs-appellees allegedly failed to show any right to the reliefs demanded.

In an Order dated May 8, 2000, the court a quo denied defendant-appellant's Motion for Leave to File Demurrer to Evidence. In the same Order, the court a quo ruled that the Motion for Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order and Writ of Prohibitory Injunction failed to comply with the requirements of Section 4 (a) of Rule 58 of the Rules of Court, hence denying the same.

Defendant-appellant proceeded to present his evidence. Testifying for the defense were defendant-appellant himself, Florence Navida (testifying as an adverse witness), Jesus Florece (also testifying as an adverse witness), and Hortencia Alba.

Defendant-appellant testified that he acquired the subject property where the Divine Heart Memorial Park is a part, through public auction where he was the highest bidder; that a receiver was appointed by the court to receive the payments of the various buyers of memorial lots and to issue receipts therefor; and that there were talks toward a compromise agreement between defendant-appellant and Conrado Colarina but the same did not push through due to Colarina's surreptitious sales and production of titles. Meanwhile, Florence Navida testified that she was instructed by Conrado Colarina to recruit some 700 people to act as plaintiffs in consideration of a 25% share from whatever could be collected from the defendant-appellant. Jesus Florece simply testified that he was appointed by defendant-appellant to act as Sales Manager of the memorial park and his functions were to collect payments and to manage the burials in the park. As last witness for the defense, Hortencia Alba testified that she was one of the plaintiffs listed in the complaint but she was not aware of the filing of the case nor was she informed that lot buyers of the memorial park were filing cases against defendant-appellant. 4

Judgment of the RTC

As stated, the RTC rendered its decision on April 11, 2001, whereby it declared as legitimate and genuine memorial lot owners the 206 persons listed in the petitioner's answer to request for admission, to wit: 5

1. Teresita/Mariano Arcilla	2. Feliciana Balares
3. Purita Ceda	4. Juana/Carlos de la Cruz
5. Socorro Gragas	6. Ester Labanan
7. Corazon Manondo	8. Emilio Nolasco
9. Jose Alfelor	10. Paulino Pena
11. Fortunata Pega	12. Ester/Generoso San Jose
13. Marcelino Rabeje	14. Domingo Bismonte
15. Aida Amilano	16. Alvaro Botor
17. Benito Gonowon	18. Pedro Neverio
19. Saverino Boquiron, Sr.	20. Maria Ordiales
21. Fortuno Torres	22. Estela Sumayao
23. Jose Yorobe	24. Eulogio Almazan
25. Domingo Bantayan	26. Lorenzo Belza
27. Emily Lopez	28. Arnulfo Ocampo
29. Domiciano Tablante	30. Paciano Romales
31. Pablo Habana	32. Jesus/Cesar Frongoso
33. Ramon Belza	34. Gloria Llagas
35. Lorenzo de Lima	36. Manuelito Arejola
37. Eulogio Cesar	38. Octavio Cesar
39. Julian Sta. Cruz	40. Estelito Floriano
41. Flavio Larcena	42. Virginia Javier
43. Magno Beatriz	44. Felix Bolalin
45. Elpidio Belesario	46. Simeon Baita
47. Lorenzo Elano	48. Leonarda Elano
49. Honorata Ilagan	50. Francisco Jardinel
51. Jose Tagum	52. Roque Notorio
53. Encarnacion Salcedo	54. Gregorio Jardinel
55. Isidro Arejola	56. Policarpio Baal
57. Cosme Laynesa	58. Simplicio Lopez
59. Adoracion Pega	60. Perfecto Pena
61. Rebustiano Zamudio	62. Agapito Sumpay
63. Santos Rabusa	64. Victorio Lopez
65. Arsenio Hugo	66. Ernesto Undecimo
67. Leonor Baylon	68. Amparo/Fausto Barcela
69. Brigido Dimaiwat	70. Gleceria Bicaldo
71. Valerio Binamera	72. Sofronio Servino, Sr.
73. Paula Bicaldo	74. Aniano Bismonte
75. Daniel Mora	76. Primo Beliber
77. Lucricio Dimanarig	78. Ely Israel
79. Salvacion Naval	80. Eleuterio Musa
81. Reynaldo Purisima	82. Lourdes Porteza
83. Fausta Sinfuego	84. Alfredo Arce
85. Pedro Biasca	86. Ismael Moderazo
87. Jose Umali	88. Jose Carreras
89. Jeremias Vergara	90. Rafael Aragdon
91. Vicente Benavente	92. Luis Benavente
93. Beatriz Betchayda	94. Consolacion Betchayda
95. Paz Blanco	96. Naviche Esteban
97. Dioscoro Teope	98. Victor Fraginal
99. Andrea/Romeo Bagaporo	100. Porferia Bautista
101. Miguel Botin	102. Calixta Celetaria
103. Renato Casano	104. Tranquilino Dimaiwat
105. Felicidad Nacario	106. Gaudencio Nacario
107. Ester/Sabas Nacario	108. Jaime Nacario
109. Eutiquio Nacario	110. Luis Paz
111. Epifanio Solla	112. Silverio Turallo
113. Marcelo Vinas	114. Felipe Cepriaso
115. Lusio Kingking	116. Adolfo Borja
117. Juliana Demen	118. Julian Regaspi
119. Rustico Pena	120. Salvador Repuesto
121. Jacinto Cesar	122. Isidro Cesar
123. Roman Fajardo	124. Guillerma Obniola
125. Antonio Zamudio	126. Andres Foronda
127. Evelyn Medenilla	128. Jaime Prevaldos
129. Luisa Prevaldos	130. Norberta Larcena
131. Guillermo Valiente	132. Jaime del Rosario
133. Nieves Snear	134. Fortunato Obrero
135. Simeon Sto. Domingo	136. Anita Bertillo
137. Protectato Ayen	138. Gualberto Ayen
139. Emiliano Lavapie	140. Rafael Iraula
141. Crispin Ilano	142. Jaime Madara
143. Natividad Ricafort	144. Angeles Pasiona
145. Leon Fragata	146. Dominga Convocar
147. Restituto Llorente	148. Gregorio de la Rama
149. Generoso Agapito	150. Alejandro Cerdon
151. Ramon Cilo-Cilo	152. Patricio Salvino, Sr.
153. Justo Huerno	154. Juan Duncab
155. Reynaldo L. Herrera	156. Conchita Ignao
157. Loreto Ignao	158. Cerilo Petalio
159. Jose Salamat	160. Rodolfo Dulce
161. Patricio Laysa	162. Melecio Agbigay
163. Francisco Agapito	164. Avelino Barandon
165. Juliana Bravante	166. Juan Brandes
167. Dionesio Briones	168. Luciano Briones
169. Nicasio Colanza	170. Felipe Cielo
171. Carmen de Jesus	172. Gregorio Dilla
173. Lilia Galan	174. Pilar Galon
175. Claudio Galon, Jr.	176. Augusto Gallarte
177. Merlin Ilarde	178. Flaviano Labios
179. Servillano Labios	180. Santiago Labios
181. Zosimo Labios	182. Olympio Lladop
183. Felvita Macauyam	184. Artemio Malapo
185. Salud Magistrado	186. Salve Monge
187. Romeo Nacario	188. Nicasio Oliva
189. Tany Orbita	190. Maria Sotaso
191. Leonor Sorita	192. Felicitas Servino
193. Caridad Tumalba	194. Pablo Victorino
195. Felix Zape	196. Ramon Zape
197. Santos Balbuena	198. Marcos Boqueron
199. Rodolfo Balaton	200. Alfredo Bautista
201. Primitivo Damarinas	202. Salvador Morallo
203. Marcelo Redoquerio	204. Elias de Villa
205. Feliza Guevara	206. Salvador Sto. Domingo

In addition, the RTC pronounced as legitimate owners of memorial lots for having submitted sufficient evidence of ownership the following 95 individuals, namely: 6

1. Honorato Dorosan	2. Silvina Vargas
3. Leonides Dorosan	4. Purificacion Dorosan
5. Romeo S. Magistrado	6. Flordeliza Veras
7. Porfirio Veras	8. Pacita G. Nunez
9. Dominador Veras	10. Rogelio Perez
11. Nestor Nunez	12. Isauro Belmonte
13. Angelina Barayoga	14. Lydia Colarina
15. Elpidio V. Barcenas	16. Carlito M. Oliva
17. Richard Colarina	18. Socorro Balbuena
19. Felvita Macauyam	20. Estela Rivera
21. Natividad P. de Villa	22. Miguel Toprio
23. Elias F. Cabaltera	24. Teresita Antioquia
25. Wenifreda V. Salcedo	26. Carlito M. Oliva (2nd)
27. Pedro Lascano	28. Silvina Vargas (2nd)
29. Natividad Nunez	30. Wenifreda V. Salcedo (2nd)
31. Richard Colarina (2nd)	32. Estela C. Rivera (2nd)
33. Flordeliza Veras (2nd)	34. Leoncio Morallo
35. Cecilia Antang Gray	36. Zoilo Fajardo
37. Marciano Bicaldo	38. Agatona Alba
39. Celestina Aleman	40. Salvacion Anivado
41. Miguel Balayboa	42. Jose Blanca
43. Adela Blaza	44. Anecleto Basilan
45. Victoriano Bedural/Angela    Nacario	46. Eleuterio Bicaldo
47. Melyn Bolotaolo	48. Emilio Briñas
49. Vilma Brutas	50. Alfredo Buaqueña
51. Ildefonso Burcer	52. Gliceria Buyet
53. Teodora Cerdon	54. Napoleon Credo
55. Bonifacio V. Curativo	56. Patricio Delatado
57. Felisa O. Doroin	58. Luis Driz
59. Fidel de Vera	60. Faustino Ebonite
61. Julio Elcano	62. Remedios Esta
63. Lorenzo Figura	64. Elena Fortuna
65. Jesus L. Goleta	66. Cecilia A. Grey (2nd)
67. Angel N. Gregorio	68. Ernesto Hernandez, Jr.
69. Eutiquio D. Ibarreta	70. Lorenzo Isaac
71. Proserfina Jardinel	72. Ursula Labis
73. Rogelio Largo	74. Rogelio Lanusa
75. Santos Luzano	76. Fe D. Malate
77. Emeteria Aquino/Eufenia Morallo	78. Cecila Nacario (not signed but with receipt)
79. Gliceria O. Nacario	80. Perpetua L. Nacario
81. Fortunato Nallos	82. Rufino Oida
83. Amando C. Olos	84. Ciony Panambo
85. Ludivina Paz	86. Wilfredo Peñas
87. Wilfredo Prilles	88. Daniel Salvino
89. Crispina L. Saldivar	90. Fabio Valera (transferred to Pedro Vales)
91. Gertrudes Valerio	92. Leonila P. Vales
93. Mercelino Velasco	94. Paciencia Velasco
95. Sebastian Nacario

Moreover, the RTC considered as genuine and legitimate claimants the 75 persons listed in Exhibit 5 as "active/paying," to wit: 7

1. Romeo Amparado	2. Protecta Ayen
3. Teresita Amparado	4. Manuelito Arejola
5. Jose Alfeler	6. Elecia Agbigay
7. Natividad Balderama	8. Feliciana Balares
9. Domingo Bismonte	10. Semion Baita
11. Santos Balderas	12. Ernesto Bartelet
13. Emelio Breñas	14. Jocylyn Brezuela
15. Purita Ceda	16. Francisco Buezon
17. Macario Cantavieja	18. Juliana Chavez
19. Felepe Cipriaso	20. Gregorio Dilla
21. Tranquilino Dimaiwat	22. Bregido Dimaiwat
23. Luis Driz	24. Remedios Esta
25. Eugenio Ebonite	26. Alfredo Garbiles
27. Felisa Guevara	28. Nelia Galan
29. Agapito Generoso	30. Roque Gregorio
31. Cecelia Gray	32. Haide Intin
33. Gary Ibarreta	34. Servillano Labios
35. Zosimo Labios	36. Dominador Laynesa
37. Cosme Laynesa	38. Patricio Laynesa
39. Nerie Luceña	40. Eladio Largo
41. Santos Luzano	42. Simplicio Lopez
43. Victorio Lopez	44. Emily Lopez
45. Milagros Lucriana	46. Cecelia Mimay
47. Salud Magistrado	48. Evelyn Medenilla
49. Nilo Magno	50. Ernesto Marmol
51. Ismael Maderaso	52. Emelio Nolasco
53. Jose Nabor	54. Arnulfo Ocampo
55. Rufina Ojeda	56. Paulino Peña
57. Vicente Perillo	58. Wilfredo Prilles
59. Luisa Privaldos	60. Luis Paz
61. Jaime Pegueras	62. Cristina Quinto
63. Marcelino Redoquirio	64. Pascual Rabusa
65. Gloria Ramos	66. Gloria Saculsan
67. Domingo Solera	68. Fausta Sinfuego
69. Levy Sabaupan	70. Agapito Sumpay
71. Severo Silva	72. Jose Tagum
73. Maurecio Verano	74. Leonila Valles
75. Jose Yorobe

as well as the 137 persons listed as "with interment (fully paid and not fully paid)," to wit: 8

1. Protecta Ayen	2. Alfredo Arce
3. Consolacion Abonita	4. Francisco Agapito
5. Elpedio Albaniel	6. Policarpio Baal
7. Efren Besa	8. Victorio Bedural
9. Feliciana Balares	10. Domingo Bismonte
11. Vevencia Bismonte	12. Elpedio Belesario
13. Miguel Balayboa	14. Letecia Bautbet
15. Rodolfo Balaton	16. Sylvia Bergantin
17. Genaro Bona	18. Alma Bona
19. Dionesio Briones	20. Luciano Briones
21. Marcos Boquiron	22. Severino Boquiron
23. Alfredo Boaqueña	24. Jocylyn Brezuela
25. Dhelia Bechayda	26. Luis Benavente
27. Pedro Blasca	28. Adolfo Borja
29. Anita Bertillo	30. Felix Bolalin
31. Gleceria Buyet	32. Juana/Carlos dela Cruz
33. Benito Castro	34. Jaime Bernales
35. Leonor Baylon	36. Macario Cantavieja
37. Isidro Ceazar	38. Napoleon Credo
39. Renato Casano	40. Felipe Cipriaso
41. Salome Cabalquinto	42. Angelberto Callos
43. Evangeline de Castro	44. Pedro Credo
45. Victoria Collada	46. Silverio Caday
47. Jose Dasmariñes	48. Juan Duncab
49. Rodolfo Dulce	50. Rogelio Sto. Domingo
51. Amy Sto. Domingo	52. Semion Sto. Domingo
53. Marcos Driz	54. Josefina de Dios
55. Julio Elcano	56. Juvencio Esta
57. Dionesio Espiritu	58. Leon Fragata
59. Elena Fortuna	60. Graciano Frajinal
61. Victor Frajinal	62. Lourdes Fortiza
63. Josefina Fornaliza	64. Jesus Frongoso
65. Socorro Gragas	66. Alfredo Garbiles
67. Jesus Goleta	68. Yamerto Goleta
69 Agapito Generoso	70. Nerimedez Guevara
71. Bernardo Guarnes	72. Argel Gregorio
73. Liwayway Hernandez	74. Justo Huerno
75. Ramona Hernandez	76. Vecitacion Hernandez
77. Haide Intin	78. Rafael Iraola
79. Ester San Jose	80. Gregorio Jardinel
81. Francisco Jardinel	82. Pascual Jardinel
83. Benito San Juan	84. Proserfina Jardinel
85. Olipio Lladop	86. Zosimo Labios
87. Ursula Labios	88. Erlinda Ligao
89. Restituto Llorente	90. Norberto Larcena
91. Eladio Largo	92. Emeliano Lavapie
93. Romeo Lucasia	94. Felueta Macauyam
95. Eleuterio Nusa	96. Santiago Mancita
97. Sellen Molina	98. Adela Magistrado
99. Susan Nugas	100. Elesio Nacario
101. Eutequio Nacario	102. Salvacion Naval
103. Marcelina Naval	104. Roque Notorio
105. Fortunato Nallos	106. Cecelia Nacario
107. Felicidad Nacario	108. Gaudencia Nacario
109. Francisco Oronan	110. Tany Orbita
111. Dioscoro Pandes	112. Angel Formalejo
113. Wilfredo Prilles	114. Miriam Rebancos
115. Marcelino Rabeje	116. Susana Renegado
117. Marcelino Redoquirio	118. Gregorio dela Rama
119. Sebastian Rubianes	120. Salvador Soliman
121. Levy Sabaupan	122. Sofronio Servino
123. Agapito Sumpay	124. Severo Silva
125. Estela Sumayao	126. Brigida Sanchez
127. Caridad Tumulva	128. Silverio Turallo
129. Jose Tagum	130. Ereneo Tigue
131. Certrudes Valerio	132. Maurecio Verano
133. Jeremias Vergara	134. Pastora Vargas
135. Rita Verano	136. Fedel Vera
137. Antonio Zamudio

On June 20, 2001, the petitioner filed his motion for partial reconsideration, 9 stating that the RTC erred in ruling in favor of the 95 plaintiffs whose claims were ruled to be genuine and valid. In support of his motion, he presented the approved plan of the Divine Heart Memorial Park that indicated that the lots of the majority of such 95 plaintiffs were located either in the non-burial areas of the park, or in non-existing blocks; and contended that although some of the 95 plaintiffs had valid claims to certain lots, their respective contracts had already been cancelled. aDSIHc

In its order of August 29, 2001, however, the RTC denied the petitioner's motion for partial reconsideration on the ground that the plan of the Divine Heart Memorial Park could not prevail over the evidence presented by the defendants. It observed as follows:

It appears however that the Court's decision on this particular issue regarding the ninety-five (95) plaintiffs from Honorato Dorosan to Sebastian Nacario (Exhibits C to UUUU inclusive) was based on a physical examination of the evidence considering (sic) of the purchase agreements, receipts and certificates of ownership identified by plaintiffs through witness Jesus Florece and which he accomplished when he was then acting as general manager of the memorial park, although after the property was acquired by defendant, Florece ceased from further issuing purchase agreements anymore. Thus, the Decision of the Court was based on the existence and identification thereof by witness Jesus Florece aforesaid. This alleged plan attached by defendant in his motion for partial reconsideration cannot therefore prevail over the evidence of the plaintiffs, coming as it does only now and was never presented by defendant in the course of his evidence presentation. 10

Decision of the CA

The petitioner appealed, contending that the RTC should have admitted the plan presented through his motion for partial reconsideration.

Through the assailed decision of August 30, 2007, the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC, 11 disposing thusly:

WHEREFORE, the questioned Decision dated April 11, 2001 in Civil Case No. P-2018 is hereby AFFIRMED IN TOTO.

Plaintiffs-appellees motion for partial execution pending appeal dated June 27, 2006 is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.12

The CA pointed out that the plan could not be admitted because it had not been formally offered in evidence as required by Section 34, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court; and that the plan constituted forgotten evidence that could not be considered by the trial court in deciding the case.

The petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA on January 29, 2008. 13

Hence, this appeal.

Issue

The issue presented for consideration is whether or not the plan of the Divine Heart Memorial Park was admissible in evidence.

The petitioner argues that the plan was not forgotten but newly discovered evidence that should be admitted; that the Court should relax the rules of procedure and admit the plan despite the fact that the same had not been formally offered in evidence; and that the Court should review the factual findings of the lower courts inasmuch as they had grossly erred in passing upon the claims of the respondents, especially those of the 95 respondents.

Ruling of the Court

The appeal is bereft of merit. The CA was correct in not considering the plan of the Divine Heart Memorial Park as evidence.

First of all, the petitioner hereby presents a factual issue in urging the review of the records in order for the Court to reconsider the unanimous findings of the CA and the RTC and instead hold that the defendants, respondents herein, were not legitimate buyers and owners of the memorial lots found in the Divine Heart Memorial Park. However, such imposition cannot be accepted because this Court is not a trier of facts. 14 In this appeal under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, the Court is limited to reviewing only questions of law. 15 We further remind that as a general rule the factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the CA, are binding on this Court. 16 Although the Court has recognized certain exceptions to the operation of this rule, 17 the petitioner has not sufficiently shown why and how this case should be treated as exceptional.

Secondly, the plan is not newly-discovered evidence. Section 1 of Rule 37, Rules of Court, allows a party to file a motion for new trial provided the following requirements are present, namely: (1) that the evidence was discovered after trial; (2) that such evidence could not have been discovered and produced at the trial even with the exercise of reasonable diligence; (3) that such evidence is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative, or impeaching; and (4) that such evidence, if admitted, would probably change the judgment. 18 The absence of any of the requirements forbids the court from allowing the evidence sought to be introduced to be admitted in evidence. Clearly, if the allegedly newly discovered evidence could have been presented during the trial with the exercise of reasonable diligence, the same cannot be considered newly discovered. 19

In Custodio v. Sandiganbayan, 20 the Court has set the requirement for due diligence that bears on the propriety of the motion for new trial based on newly-discovered evidence, thus:

The threshold question in resolving a motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence is whether the proffered evidence is in fact a newly discovered evidence which could not have been discovered by due diligence. The question of whether evidence is newly discovered has two aspects: a temporal one, i.e., when was the evidence discovered, and a predictive one, i.e., when should or could it have been discovered. It is to the latter that the requirement of due diligence has relevance. We have held that in order that a particular piece of evidence may be properly regarded as newly discovered to justify new trial, what is essential is not so much the time when the evidence offered first sprang into existence nor the time when it first came to the knowledge of the party now submitting it; what is essential is that the offering party had exercised reasonable diligence in seeking to locate such evidence before or during trial but had nonetheless failed to secure it. ETHIDa

The Rules do not give an exact definition of due diligence, and whether the movant has exercised due diligence depends upon the particular circumstances of each case. Nonetheless, it has been observed that the phrase is often equated with reasonable promptness to avoid prejudice to the defendant. In other words, the concept of due diligence has both a time component and a goodfaith component. The movant for a new trial must not only act in a timely fashion in gathering evidence in support of the motion; he must act reasonably and in good faith as well. Due diligence contemplates that the defendant acts reasonably and in good faith to obtain the evidence, in light of the totality of the circumstances and the facts known to him.

The CA stated:

We are not convinced that the map or the plan was not discovered or available during trial. Defendant-appellant's allegation that his agents were not in complete control of the records of the cemetery which prevented him from discovering the map or plan earlier, is specious. This hardly incites belief in light of the fact that the action below was instituted in 1995 while defendant-appellant acquired the subject cemetery five years earlier, in 1990. As the new owner thereof, defendant-appellant was expected to ask for or to secure such basic document as a map or plan of the entire lot. A person of ordinary prudence and concern would have wanted to see for himself the extent and boundaries of what he is acquiring. Thus, a person is presumed to take ordinary care of his concerns. With ordinary diligence, the said map or plan would have been available long before the Complaint was filed in court. Thus, the failure of the defendant-appellant to present what he calls a'vital document' during the trial is inexcusable.21 (bold underscoring supplied for emphasis)

As the foregoing bears out, the CA correctly held that the plan was not newly-discovered but forgotten evidence. The main consideration was that the petitioner could have presented the plan during the trial had it exercised due diligence.

Lastly, the Court cannot simply relax the rules of procedure and allow the presentation of forgotten evidence notwithstanding that the petitioner now insists that doing so will serve the highest interest of justice. Although litigation is not a game of technicalities in which the better tactician wins, 22 we should stress that the rules of procedure have a role to play in insuring that litigations are conducted in a just, speedy and orderly fashion. 23 As such, the petitioner's plea that the relaxation of the rules will best serve the highest interest of justice is disregarded because of his lack of persuasive demonstration that his failure to present the plan during trial was not because of his neglect. The Court is wary of pleas for the liberalization of the rules and may only consider the same upon a clear and convincing showing by the petitioner of his observance of due diligence, which did not happen in this case. Indeed, such liberalization in the construction and application of the rules of procedure should not be made subordinate to the gross mistakes and inexcusable negligence of the litigant and his counsel; otherwise, the rules of procedure, albeit intended to ensure the speedy, inexpensive and smooth administration of justice, would be easily reduced to a mockery. cSEDTC

WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition for review on certiorari; AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on August 30, 2007; and ORDERS the petitioner to pay the costs of suit.

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

 

(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1. Rollo, pp. 33-66; penned by Associate Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr., and concurred in by Associate Justice (now Presiding Justice) Andres B. Reyes, Jr., and Associate Justice Jose C. Mendoza (now a Member of this Court).

2. Id. at 68-69.

3. Id. at 98-112; penned by Presiding Judge Martin P. Badong, Jr.

4. Id. at 47-51.

5. Id. at 51-54.

6. Id. at 54-56.

7. Id. at 56-58.

8. Id. at 58-60.

9. Records, Volume 1, p. 454.

10. Id. at 490.

11. Supra note 1.

12. Id. at 66.

13. Supra note 2.

14. Co v. Vargas, G.R. No. 195167, November 16, 2011, 660 SCRA 451, 458.

15. Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

16. Tan v. Andrade, G.R. No. 171904, August 7, 2013, 703 SCRA 198, 204.

17. In Salcedo v. People, G.R. No. 137143, December 8, 2000, 347 SCRA 499, 505, the Court enumerated the following exceptions:

 (1) When the factual findings of the Court of Appeals and the trial court are contradictory;

 (2) When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures;

 (3) When the inference made by the Court of Appeals from its findings of fact is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible;

 (4) When there is grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts;

 (5) When the appellate court, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case, and such findings are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee;

 (6) When the judgment of the Court of Appeals is premised on misapprehension of facts;

 (7) When the Court of Appeals failed to notice certain relevant facts which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion;

 (8) When the findings of fact are themselves conflicting;

 (9) When the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of the specific evidence on which they are based; and

 (10) When the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the absence of evidence but such findings are contradicted by the evidence on record.

18. Ybiernas v. Tanco-Gabaldon, G.R. No. 178925, June 1, 2011, 650 SCRA 154, 169.

19. Id.

20. G.R. Nos. 96027-28, March 8, 2005, 453 SCRA 24, 34-35.

21. Rollo, p. 69.

22. Anson Trade Center, Inc. v. Pacific Banking Corporation, G.R. No. 179999, March 17, 2009, 581 SCRA 751, 760.

23. Section 6, Rule 1 of the Rules of Court.