G.R. No. L-17587 December 18, 1967
PHILIPPINE BANKING CORPORATION, representing the estate of JUSTINIA SANTOS Y CANON FAUSTINO, deceased, plaintiff-appellant, vs. LUI SHE, in her own behalf and as administratrix of the intestate estate of Wong Heng, deceased, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

This is a resolution on a motion for new trial filed by the defendant-appellant, Lui She. The case involves a series of contracts between Justina Santos, a Filipino, and Wong Heng, an alien. The Supreme Court, in its decision dated September 12, 1967, declared these contracts void as part of a scheme to violate the constitutional prohibition against aliens acquiring private agricultural lands. The contracts included a lease contract (Plff Exh. 3), later amended, an option to buy, and subsequent contracts extending the lease to 99 years and the option period to 50 years. The defendant-appellant’s first motion for reconsideration, arguing the lease contract was separable and valid, was denied. The present motion for new trial is based on three documents purportedly newly-discovered: a codicil dated November 11, 1957, and two wills executed on August 24 and August 29, 1959, by Justina Santos. The codicil named Tita Yaptinchay LaO as administratrix and heir. The wills instructed her heirs to respect the lease and option in favor of Wong. The defendant-appellant claims these documents could not have been presented at the trial (concluded August 6, 1960) as they were presented in the probate court only after Santos’s death on December 28, 1964.

ISSUE

Whether the motion for new trial, based on the alleged newly-discovered evidence (the codicil and wills), should be granted.

RULING

The motion for new trial is denied. The documents are not newly-discovered evidence. The wills (August 24 and 29, 1959) were already presented in the case as defendant’s Exhibits 285 and 279 and were considered in the lower court and Supreme Court decisions. The essence of the 1957 codicil was substantially adverted to in the testimony of a defense witness and recited in the lower court’s decision. Furthermore, the documents would not alter the result. The execution of the subsequent contracts (the lease and related agreements) constituted an implied revocation of the codicil’s disposition of the land. The statements in the 1959 wills, instructing respect for Wong’s rights upon his acquisition of Filipino citizenship, are merely a reiteration of the void scheme and do not negate the intent to effectively transfer ownership to an alien, as demonstrated by witness testimonies that Santos’s clear wish was for Wong to enjoy and own the properties.