G.R. No.: C.A. No. 601
Date: March 22, 1946

Case Parties/Title: PETRA GATMAITAN, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MODESTO J. PASCUAL, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

On October 27, 1942, the Court of First Instance of Bulacan rendered a decision ordering the defendant-appellant, Modesto J. Pascual, to: (1) immediately restore possession to the plaintiff-appellee, Petra Gatmaitan, of a portion of land described in the complaint and marked on a sketch; (2) pay P300 for estimated filling expenses for said land; (3) pay P10 annually from January 1, 1937, until possession is restored; and (4) pay the costs. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision in full. The appellant was granted leave to file a motion for reconsideration, contending this could not be done without a new trial due to disputed facts and lost oral evidence. However, a re-examination of the record, including the brief of the appellant, revealed an admission that the litigated portion of land is “really part and parcel of that belonging to the appellee.” The appellant’s brief stated that upon taking possession of a parcel purchased from Gatmaitan on September 18, 1936, he included an irregular salient of another of her properties. The only remaining question on appeal was the admissibility of a supplemental answer filed by the appellant after the trial court’s decision, alleging an established easement in his favor over the subject land.

ISSUE

1. Whether a new trial is necessary to resolve the motion for reconsideration.
2. Whether the trial court erred in not admitting the appellant’s supplemental answer alleging an easement.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the motion for reconsideration and affirmed the lower courts’ decisions.
1. On the necessity of a new trial: The Court found no controversy on the fundamental issue, as the appellant’s own brief admitted the litigated land belonged to the appellee. The pertinent testimony quoted in the appellant’s brief did not alter the trial court’s decision. The Court declared the case duly reconstituted for all legal purposes, setting aside a prior resolution ordering a new trial if evidence could not be reconstituted.
2. On the supplemental answer: The Court ruled against the appellant on this purely legal question. The supplemental answer was inadmissible because: (a) it was not supported by affidavits of merit as required by section 2 of Rule 37; and (b) the alleged matter was not new and should have been set up in the original answer and proved at the trial.
Separate Concurring Opinion (Feria, J.):
Justice Feria concurred, adding that the lower court’s conclusion of ownership was supported by evidence, namely the appellant’s own admission. Regarding the supplemental answer, the lower court correctly did not admit it because it was filed after the decision and alleged facts occurring prior to the original pleading. On the motion for new trial, its denial was a matter of discretion for the trial court and generally not assignable as error on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. The formal motion for new trial on grounds that the judgment is contrary to law or evidence is no longer a prerequisite for raising such questions on appeal.