GR 82072; (April, 1989) (Digest)
G.R. No. 82072 . April 17, 1989.
GEORGIA G. TUMANG, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and SPOUSES DANIEL DEL MUNDO, JR. and HAYDEE T. DEL MUNDO, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Georgia Tumang filed an action to annul deeds of sale covering her nine-tenths interest in a Baguio City lot, which she executed in favor of her sister and brother-in-law, respondents Spouses Del Mundo. She alleged the sales were simulated, executed without consideration merely to accommodate respondent Daniel Del Mundo’s need to disclose assets for his government employment. The Regional Trial Court annulled the deeds and ordered reconveyance. The Court of Appeals initially affirmed this decision.
Respondent spouses then filed a motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence, presenting receipts totaling P69,992.00 bearing Tumang’s signature, which they claimed represented the consideration for the sales. They asserted these receipts were discovered only after trial, having been misplaced among old office files. The Court of Appeals granted the new trial, finding the receipts material and their earlier discovery despite reasonable diligence not possible.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in granting a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence.
RULING
The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals, finding no grave abuse of discretion. For newly discovered evidence to warrant a new trial, it must be: (1) discovered after trial; (2) undiscoverable earlier despite reasonable diligence; and (3) material, not merely cumulative, and of such weight that it would probably alter the judgment. All requisites were met. The receipts were found post-trial. The explanation for their late discovery—being inadvertently filed and forgotten—was plausible, as respondents would have naturally presented them earlier had they been available to counter the central claim of no consideration. The evidence is material, directly addressing the pivotal issue of whether the sales were simulated or for value, and could change the trial court’s result.
The grant of a new trial rests on the court’s sound discretion, reviewable only for clear abuse. No such abuse exists here. The receipts’ authenticity is uncontested, but their legal import—whether they represent payment for the property or, as Tumang now claims, funds held in trust for the spouses’ children—is a factual matter best ventilated in a new trial to serve substantial justice. The petition was denied.