G.R. No. 9764 ; September 23, 1914
VICTORIANO SANTA ANA, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellees, vs. BERNABE SANTA ANA, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

FACTS:
This is a motion for a new trial based on the ground of newly discovered evidence. The underlying action seeks to set aside a conveyance made by the defendants and to declare the real estate described therein as property of the plaintiffs. The newly discovered evidence consists of a document dated around 1870, purporting to be a partition of real estate made by the plaintiffs’ ancestors among their children. A motion for a new trial on the same ground had previously been filed in the Court of First Instance after trial and judgment, but it was denied. The court held that the evidence was not newly discovered within the legal meaning and, even if admitted, would not have materially affected the judgment. The defendants excepted to this denial and appealed both the judgment on the merits and the order denying a new trial.

ISSUE:
Whether the Supreme Court should entertain a direct motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence when the same issue is already pending on appeal from the lower court’s denial of a similar motion.

RULING:
The Supreme Court denied the motion. It held that the question of whether the defendants are entitled to a new trial is already before the Court on appeal, as the denial of the motion in the lower court was properly excepted to and appealed along with the judgment on the merits. Under Section 143 of the Code of Civil Procedure, upon the rendition of a final judgment, a party may perfect a bill of exceptions for review by the Supreme Court of all rulings, orders, and judgments to which exception was duly taken. A motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence is not subject to a separate appeal but is reviewed together with the appeal from the judgment on the merits. Therefore, the Supreme Court should not entertain a direct motion that would anticipate the resolution of the same issue on appeal.