G.R. No. 143929; February 28, 2003
GUILLERMO AND LOURDES BERNALDEZ, petitioners, vs. CONCHITA FRANCIA, respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Conchita Francia is the registered owner of a residential lot in Manila. After a fire destroyed the improvements on her property, petitioners Guillermo and Lourdes Bernaldez, owners of the adjacent lot, constructed a kitchen that encroached upon a portion of her land. A survey by respondent’s engineer confirmed an encroachment of nineteen square meters. Despite demands, petitioners refused to vacate, prompting respondent to file a complaint for recovery of possession.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ordered a series of surveys. The surveyor nominated by respondent, whose plan was approved by the Bureau of Lands, reported the encroachment. The court later directed the Bureau of Lands to appoint an engineer for an impartial survey. Engr. Elpidio de Lara, Chief of the Technical Services Division of the DENR, conducted this survey and reported that petitioners had encroached upon seventeen square meters of respondent’s lot. The RTC ruled in favor of respondent based on this evidence.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC’s factual findings that petitioners encroached on respondent’s property and in denying petitioners’ motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition. The issues raised are factual, and in a petition for review under Rule 45, only questions of law are reviewable. The factual findings of the trial court, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are final and conclusive when supported by evidence. Here, the finding of encroachment was substantiated by the consistent reports of two engineers, including the official survey by Engr. De Lara of the DENR. His report, prepared pursuant to a court order, carried official weight despite petitioners’ claim it was a private writing.
Furthermore, the Court upheld the denial of the motion for new trial. Petitioners’ alleged newly discovered evidence was a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT No. 180189) under different names, which they claimed cast doubt on respondent’s title (TCT No. 180199). The Court ruled this evidence did not meet the requisites for new trial. Petitioners failed to exercise reasonable diligence in discovering it earlier, as a simple verification of respondent’s title during trial would have sufficed. Moreover, the evidence was immaterial as it pertained to a different title number and a different parcel of land, and thus would not have changed the judgment.