CASE DIGEST FORMAT SAMPLE

MARIO MENDEZONA VS JULIO OZAMIZ

TOPIC:

FACTS:

A suit was instituted on September 25, 1991 by the petitioner spouses Mario J. Mendezona
and Teresita M. Mendezona as initial plaintiff and in the amended complaint filed on October 7,
1991, herein co-petitioner spouses Luis J. Mendezona joined as co-plaintiff. In their compliant,
the petitioners as plaintiff therein alleged that petitioner spouses Mario J. Mendezona and
Teresita M. Mendezona petitioner spouses Luis J. Mendezona and Maricar Mendezona own a
parcel of land each in Lahug, Cebu city with similar areas 3462, 3466 and 3468
square meters covered and described in TCT Nos 116834, 116835 and 116836. The petitioners
ultimately traced their titles of ownership over their respective properties from a deed of
Absolute Sale executed in their favor by Carmen Ozamiz and in consideration of P 1,040,000. It
appears than on January 15, 1991, the respondents instituted the petition for guardianship with
RTC Oroquieta, City alleging that Carmen Ozamiz had become disoriented and could
not recognize most of her friends and could no longer take care of her properties by reason pf
weak mind and absentmindedness. As guardians Roberto J. Montalvan and Julio H. Ozamiz
filed on August 6, 1991 with the guardianship court their Inventories and Accounts including the
10,369 square meters Lahug property. Said Lahug property covered by deed of Absolute Sale
dated April 28, 1989 executed by Carmen Ozamiz in favor of petitioners. In their Answer,
respondents opposed the claim of ownership of the Lahug property and alleged that the titles
issued to the petitioners are defective and illegal and the ownership of said properties was
acquired in bad faith and without value inasmuch as the consideration for the sale is grossly
inadequate and unconscionable. Respondents further alleged that on April 28, 1989 Carmen
Ozamiz was already ailing and not in full possession of her mental faculties; and that her
properties having been placed in administration, she was in effect incapacitated to contract with
petitioners. On September 23, 1992, the Trial court rendered decision in favor of petitioners. On
appeal the Court of Appeal reversed its decision and ruled that the Absolute Sale dated April 28,
1989 was a simulated contract since the petitioners failed to prove that the consideration was
actually paid.

On September 23, 1992 the trial court rendered its decision in favor of the
petitioners, the dispositive portion of which reads, to wit:

Wherefore, premises considered, the Court is of the opinion and so declares that:

1. The property described in the complaint was sold, with reservation

of usufructuary rights by Carmen Ozamiz to the plaintiffs under a valid contract,
voluntarily and deliberately entered into while she was of sound mind, for sufficient
and good consideration, and without fraud, force, undue influence or intimidation
having been exercised upon her, and consequently, the Court orders the defendants
herein to acknowledge and recognize the plaintiffs title to the aforecited property and
to refrain from further clouding the same;
 CASE DIGEST FORMAT SAMPLE

2. That the one-third (1/3) share erroneously titled to Antonio Mendezona should be
titled in the name of Teresita Adad vda. de Mendezona as her paraphernal property
and the Register of Deeds of Cebu City is hereby ordered to do so;

3. The Notice of Lis Pendens affecting the property should be eliminated from the
record and the Register of Deeds of Cebu City is ordered to expunge the same.

On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the appellate court reversed the factual
findings of the trial court and ruled that the Deed of Absolute Sale dated April
28, 1989 was a simulated contract since the petitioners failed to prove that the
consideration was actually paid, and, furthermore, that at the time of the
execution of the contract the mental faculties of Carmen Ozamiz were already
seriously impaired. Thus, the appellate court declared that the Deed of
Absolute Sale of April 28, 1989 is null and void. It ordered the cancellation of
the certificates of title issued in the petitioners names and directed the
issuance of new certificates of title in favor of Carmen Ozamiz or her estate.

Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision of the

appellate court. Subsequent thereto, the petitioners filed a motion for a new
trial and/or for reception of evidence. They contended, among other things,
that the appellate court totally ignored the testimony of
Judge Teodorico Durias regarding the mental condition of Carmen Ozamiz a
month before the execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale in question. The said
testimony was taken in the Special Proceeding No. 1250 in
the Regional Trial Court ofOroquieta City. However, Judge Durias was not
presented as a witness in Civil Case No. CEB-10766 in
the Regional Trial Court ofCebu City. Petitioners alleged that
Judge Duriass testimony is a newly-discovered evidence which could not
have been discovered prior to the trial in the court below by the exercise of
due diligence.

We shall first rule on the issue of whether to consider the testimony of

Judge Durias as newly discovered evidence. A motion for new trial upon the
ground of newly discovered evidence is properly granted only where there is
concurrence of the following requisites, namely: (a) the evidence had been
discovered after trial; (b) the evidence could not have been discovered and
produced during trial even with the exercise of reasonable diligence; and (c)
 CASE DIGEST FORMAT SAMPLE

the evidence is material and not merely corroborative, cumulative or

impeaching and is of such weight that if admitted, would probably alter the
result. All three (3) requisites must characterize the evidence sought to be
introduced at the new trial.

We find that the requirement of reasonable diligence has not been met by
the petitioners. As early as the pre-trial of the case at bar, the name of
Judge Durias has already cropped up as a possible witness for the
defendants, herein respondents. That the respondents chose not to present
him is not an indicia per se of suppression of evidence, since a party in a civil
case is free to choose who to present as his witness. Neither can
Judge Durias testimony in another case be considered as newly discovered
evidence since the facts to be testified to by Judge Durias which were existing
before and during the trial, could have been presented by the petitioners at
the trial below. The testimony of Judge Durias has been in existence waiting
[16]

only to be elicited from him by questioning. [17]

It has been held that a lack of diligence is exhibited where the newly
discovered evidence was necessary or proper under the pleadings, and its
existence must have occurred to the party in the course of the preparation of
the case, but no effort was made to secure it; there is a failure to make inquiry
of persons who were likely to know the facts in question, especially where
information was not sought from co-parties; there is a failure to seek evidence
available through public records; there is a failure to discover evidence that is
within the control of the complaining party; there is a failure to follow leads
contained in other evidence; and, there is a failure to utilize available
discovery procedures. Thus, the testimony of Judge Durias cannot be
[18]

considered as newly discovered evidence to warrant a new trial.

ISSUE/S:

RULING:

A MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL upon the ground of newly discovered evidence is properly
granted only where there is concurrence of the following requisites:

1. the evidence had been discovered after trial;

2. the evidence could not have been discovered and produced during trial even with the
exercise of reasonable diligence; and
 CASE DIGEST FORMAT SAMPLE

3. the evidence is material and not merely corroborative, cumulative, or impeaching

and is of such weight that if admitted, would probably alter the result.
All 3 requisites must characterize the evidence sought to be introduced at the new trial.

SC finds that the requirement of reasonable diligence has not been met by the petitioners.
As early as the pre-trial of the case, the name Judge Durias has already cropped up as a
possible witness for the defendants, herein respondents. That the respondent chose not to
present his is not an indicia per se of suppression of evidence, since a party in a civil case is
free to choose who to present as his witness. Neither can Judge Durias' testimony in
another case be considered as newly discovered evidence since the facts to be testified to
by Judge Durias' which were existing before and during the trial, could have been presented
by the petitioners at the trial The testimony of Judge Durias has been in existence waiting
only to be elicited from him by questioning.

Factual findings of the appellate court are generally conclusive on the SC which is not a trier
of facts. It is not the function of the SC to analyze or weigh evidence all over again.
However, this rule is not without exception. If there is a showing that the appellate court's
findings of facts complained of are totally devoid of support in the record or that they are so
glaringly erroneous as to constitute grave abuse of discretion, the SC must discard such
erroneous findings of facts. SC finds that the exception applies in the case at bench.

Simulation is defined as :the declaration of a fictitious will, deliberately made by agreement

of the parties, in order to produce, for the purposes of deception, the appearances of a
juridical act which does not exist or is different from that which was really executed. The
requisites of simulation are:

1. an outward declaration of will different from the will of the parties;

2. the false appearance must have been intended by mutual agreement; and
3. the purpose is to deceive third persons. None of these were clearly shown to exist in
the case at bar.
Contrary to the erroneous conclusions of the appellate court, a simulated contract cannot be
inferred from the mere non-production of the checks. It was not the burden of the
petitioners to prove so. It is significant to note that the deed of absolute sale is a notarized
document duly acknowledged before a notary public. As such, it has in its favor the
presumption of regularity and it carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with
respect to its due execution. It is admissible in evidence without further proof of its
authenticity and is entitled to full faith and credit upon its face.