Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
*
G.R. No. 143929. February 28, 2003.
______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001669c5a0a29abe6b7f7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/7
10/22/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 398
489
______________
490
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001669c5a0a29abe6b7f7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/7
10/22/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 398
survey plan was duly approved by the Bureau of Lands. On the other
hand, Mercado’s report did not contain a similar finding. His plan
7
was still pending approval by the Bureau of Lands.
While the trial court was able to establish a common boundary of
respondent’s and petitioners’ lots from the reports filed by
Santamaria and Mercado, it still could not conclusively determine
whether the disputed area belonged to respondent’s lot or to that of
petitioners. On September 10, 1990, the trial court issued an order
calling for another resurvey of the two lots and directing the
Director of the Bureau of Lands to appoint a competent geodetic
engineer to undertake the resurvey of petitioners’ and respondent’s
properties in the presence of representatives of the RTC and of the
parties. A survey team under Engr. Elpidio De Lara, Chief of the
Technical Services Division of the Land Management Services
(National Capital Region) of the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources resurveyed the properties pursuant to the
aforesaid Order of the trial court. Thereafter, Engr. De Lara
submitted a survey report with a verification plan, stating that
petitioners had 8 encroached upon seventeen square meters of
respondent’s lot.
On August 18, 1995, the RTC rendered its decision holding that
petitioners had encroached on respondent’s lot by an area of
9
seventeen square meters.
Petitioners filed with the trial court a motion for new trial on the
ground of newly discovered evidence. They claimed that the TCT
covering respondent’s lot referred to another lot owned by Nolasco
and Editha Tupaz. However, the RTC denied the motion for lack of
10
merit.
Petitioners appealed the decision of the trial court to the Court of
Appeals. On January 19, 2000, the appellate court promulgated its
Decision affirming in toto the decision of the trial court. The Court
of Appeals ruled that the factual findings of the RTC were supported
by the evidence presented before it. It, likewise, held that the trial
court did not err in denying the motion for new trial,
______________
491
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001669c5a0a29abe6b7f7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/7
10/22/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 398
______________
492
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001669c5a0a29abe6b7f7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/7
10/22/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 398
whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme Court a verified
petition for review on certiorari. The petition shall raise only questions of
law which must be distinctly set forth. (Emphasis supplied.)
______________
16 Bañas, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 325 SCRA 259 (2000); Philippine National
Construction Corporation v. Mars Construction Enterprises, Inc., 325 SCRA 624
(2000).
17 Decision of the Court of Appeals, pp. 5-6; Rollo, pp. 74-75.
18 TSN, De Lara, November 4, 1992, pp. 4-5.
493
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001669c5a0a29abe6b7f7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/7
10/22/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 398
The Court, likewise, sustains the findings of the appellate court that
petitioners’ motion for new trial was correctly denied by the trial
court.
We have previously ruled that a motion for new trial on the
ground of newly discovered evidence shall be granted when the
concurrence of the following requisites is established: (a) the
evidence is discovered after trial; (b) the evidence could not have
been discovered and produced during trial even with the exercise of
reasonable diligence; and (c) the evidence is material and not merely
corroborative, cumulative or impeaching and is of 19such weight that
if admitted, would probably change the judgment. In order that a
particular piece of evidence may be regarded as “newly discovered”
for purposes of granting a new trial, it is essential to show that the
offering party exercised reasonable diligence in seeking to locate
such evidence before or during trial but had nonetheless failed to
20
secure it.
The evidence offered by petitioners, TCT No. 180189 issued by
the Registry of Deeds of Manila not to respondent, but to “Spouses
21
Nolasco E. Tupaz and Editha L. Tupaz,” does not satisfy the
aforementioned requisites. The Court notes that although petitioners
found out about the existence of said TCT only after trial, they could
have easily discovered the same before or during the trial of the case
had they bothered to check the TCT of respondent’s lot to ascertain
whether or not it overlapped with their own lot. In any case, TCT
No. 180189 is hardly material to their case, considering that
respondent’s TCT is of a different number: TCT No. 180199. Hence,
it is not difficult to see why the two certificates of title refer to
different parcels of land and owners. Such piece of evidence would
certainly not have affected, much less, altered the outcome of the
case.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is hereby
DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision of the Court of Appeals
dated January 19, 2000 in CA-G.R. CV No. 52388 is AFFIRMED.
______________
494
SO ORDERED.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001669c5a0a29abe6b7f7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/7
10/22/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 398
——o0o——
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001669c5a0a29abe6b7f7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/7