GR 116109; (September, 1999) (Digest)
G.R. No. 116109 September 14, 1999
JACINTO OLAN and RENATO EBALLE, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, SPOUSES LIBRADO F. VILLANUEVA and TOMASA L. IGNACIO, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners Jacinto Olan and Renato Eballe were defendants in an ejectment case (Civil Case No. 979) filed by respondent spouses in the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Los Baños, Laguna. The MTC ordered petitioners to vacate and turn over possession of Lot 3839 and Lot 3842 to the respondents. Petitioners appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which affirmed the MTC decision. A writ of execution pending appeal was granted. Petitioners moved to quash the writ in the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. No. 30812), arguing that the lot they occupied (Lot 8253) was different from the lots ordered to be vacated (Lots 3839 and 3842). The CA denied the motion, noting that the issue of lot identity had been settled during a judicial inspection in the MTC proceedings and was not raised until the writ of execution was issued. Petitioners separately appealed the RTC decision on the merits to the Court of Appeals (CA- G.R. No. 31618 ), which affirmed the RTC. Their motion for reconsideration was denied. Hence, this petition, wherein petitioners seek to set aside the CA resolution and to compel the CA via mandamus to allow them to submit a DENR certification as newly discovered evidence to prove the lot they possess is different.
ISSUE
1. Whether the decision in Civil Case No. 979 has become final and executory.
2. Assuming the decision has not attained finality, whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing CA- G.R. No. 31618 .
3. Again assuming the decision has not attained finality, whether the Court of Appeals can be compelled to order a hearing and receive new evidence (the DENR certification) to show the parcel of land in question is in petitioner Olan’s name.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals.
1. On the finality of the decision, the Court rejected petitioners’ argument that the MTC decision (which included a clause “without prejudice to whatever final action the Department of Natural Resources/Bureau of Lands may take on the pending sales application”) was incomplete and thus did not attain finality. The Court held that the identity of the lots subject of the ejectment had been determined and finally settled in a prior Supreme Court decision (G.R. No. 112469).
2. & 3. On the issues of grave abuse of discretion and compelling the reception of new evidence, the Court found no reversible error by the Court of Appeals. Petitioners failed to properly avail of the remedy for newly discovered evidence. Instead of filing a petition for review and a motion to quash with the attached certification, they should have filed a motion for new trial with the RTC under Rule 37 of the 1964 Rules of Court, supported by affidavits showing the evidence was discovered after trial, could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence, and was material enough to probably change the judgment. Petitioners did not meet these requisites. The DENR certification requested almost ten years after the MTC decision showed a lack of reasonable diligence. Furthermore, the writ of mandamus does not lie to control the discretion of the Court of Appeals or to reverse an action already taken in its exercise.