G.R. No. 178925 ; June 1, 2011
MANUEL YBIERNAS, VICENTE YBIERNAS, MARIA CORAZON ANGELES, VIOLETA YBIERNAS, and VALENTIN YBIERNAS, Petitioners, vs. ESTER TANCO-GABALDON, MANILA BAY SPINNING MILLS, INC., and THE SHERIFF OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF PASIG CITY, BRANCH 163, Respondents.

FACTS

Estrella Mapa Vda. de Ybiernas owned a parcel of land in Talisay, Negros Occidental, covered by TCT No. T-83976. On April 28, 1988, she executed a Deed of Absolute Sale over the property in favor of her heirs, Dionisio Ybiernas and petitioners Manuel Ybiernas, Vicente Ybiernas, and Maria Corazon Angeles. On June 30, 1989, the RTC, Branch 47, Bacolod City, issued an Order in Cadastral Case No. 10 directing the registration and annotation of the Deed of Absolute Sale on the title. The deed and the RTC Order were annotated on TCT No. T-83976 on July 5, 1989.
On October 29, 1991, respondents filed a Complaint for sum of money and damages against Estrella and others in the RTC of Pasig City. The Pasig RTC issued a writ of preliminary attachment, and the sheriff levied on the subject property. The notice of attachment was annotated on TCT No. T-83976 on November 13, 1991. Dionisio filed a third-party claim, but respondents filed an indemnity bond, and the levy was not lifted. The Pasig RTC ruled in favor of respondents, a decision which eventually became final and executory.
On November 28, 2001, petitioners (including the heirs of the deceased Dionisio) filed a Complaint for Quieting of Title and Damages with the RTC of Bacolod City, arguing the levy was invalid as the property was no longer owned by Estrella. During pre-trial, the parties admitted the existence of the June 30, 1989 RTC Order. Petitioners filed a motion for summary judgment. The RTC initially denied it but, upon reconsideration, granted it in a decision dated December 27, 2005, declaring the levy invalid and ordering the cancellation of the attachment annotation.
Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). While the appeal was pending, respondents filed a motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence. They claimed to have discovered on May 9, 2006, that Cadastral Case No. 10 did not exist and that the Deed of Sale was simulated. They submitted certifications from the RTC Clerks of Court in Bacolod stating no such cadastral case was filed, and a certification from the National Archives that no copy of the Deed of Sale was on file. The CA granted the motion for new trial through Resolutions dated January 31, 2007, and July 16, 2007. Petitioners assail these CA Resolutions.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in granting respondents’ motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence.

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, REVERSED and SET ASIDE the assailed CA Resolutions, and REINSTATED the December 27, 2005 RTC decision.
The Court held that the CA gravely abused its discretion in granting the motion for new trial. The requisites for new trial based on newly discovered evidence are: (1) the evidence was discovered after trial; (2) such evidence could not have been discovered and produced at the trial with reasonable diligence; and (3) it is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative, or impeaching, and of such weight that it would probably change the judgment.
Respondents failed to satisfy the second requisite. The evidence they presented—certifications on the non-existence of the cadastral case and the deed—could have been discovered with reasonable diligence during the proceedings in the trial court. The motion for summary judgment was filed on July 30, 2004, and the RTC decision was rendered on December 27, 2005. Respondents had ample time to verify the existence of the cadastral case and the deed, which were central to petitioners’ claim, but they did not. Their claim of good faith reliance on the presumption of regularity of the RTC Order is not an excuse for lack of diligence. A party must exercise due diligence to ascertain the truth of allegations in the pleadings.
Furthermore, the RTC correctly rendered a summary judgment. During pre-trial, the parties admitted the existence of the June 30, 1989 RTC Order. With this admission and the annotations on the title, there was no genuine issue as to any material fact regarding the transfer of ownership prior to the levy. The only issues were legal ones—the validity of the levy and the effect of the prior annotations—which were proper for summary judgment. The purported newly discovered evidence, even if considered, would not alter this conclusion as it attacks the validity of the RTC Order and the deed, matters which were not genuinely in issue given the admissions and the incontrovertible fact of their annotation on the title.