G.R. Nos. L-13035 and L-13740; November 28, 1959
SEVERO ARCE ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. EMPERATRIZ ARCE, defendant. GENOVEVA BALLESTEROS, ET AL., intervenor-appellees.

SEVERO ARCE and ANASTACIO FERIA, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. SALVADOR B. ELIAZO and GENOVEVA B. BALLESTEROS, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

The spouses Severo Arce and Anastacia Feria appealed two consolidated cases. In the first case (Civil Case No. 1666), they sought the annulment of a notarized and registered deed of sale dated September 3, 1953, wherein Severo Arce and Roque de Jesus purportedly sold a rice thresher and a tractor to their daughter, Emperatriz Arce, for P20,000. The plaintiffs alleged the sale was simulated and lacked consideration, as the P20,000 was never paid. Emperatriz Arce was declared in default for not answering. After the plaintiffs presented their evidence, the trial court, noting the deed was a public document, motu proprio reopened the case to hear the notary public. In the interim, the second case (Civil Case No. 1690) was filed for injunction to stop the foreclosure sale of the same properties by appellee Genoveva Ballesteros. Ballesteros had loaned P10,000 to Emperatriz, secured by a chattel mortgage on the thresher and tractor, which was being foreclosed due to default. Ballesteros intervened in the annulment case. The trial court heard both cases on the same evidence. The plaintiffs’ evidence consisted solely of their own uncorroborated testimony that they owned the thresher, Roque de Jesus had no interest in it, Severo did not recall signing the deed or receiving payment, and they only learned of the sale during foreclosure. They also claimed the tractor belonged to their son Recto Arce (who was not a party). The notary public and his wife testified to the deed’s due execution. Ballesteros presented public documents, including the deed of sale to Emperatriz and the chattel mortgage. The trial court dismissed both complaints, upholding the validity of the sale. The plaintiffs moved for a new trial based on an affidavit from Emperatriz admitting the sale was simulated, but this was denied.

ISSUE

The pivotal issue is the validity of the deed of sale (Exhibit A/3) conveying the rice thresher and tractor to Emperatriz Arce.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decisions, upholding the validity of the deed of sale. The Court held:
1. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in reopening the case motu proprio to hear the notary public after declaring the defendant in default. Trial courts have full control over proceedings and may call additional witnesses to clarify facts, especially when a defendant is in default and cannot challenge the plaintiff’s evidence. This action, taken before judgment, is not the granting of a new trial.
2. The trial court correctly denied the motion for a new trial. The proffered affidavit from Emperatriz Arce admitting the sale’s lack of consideration did not constitute newly discovered evidence. The plaintiffs’ complaint was precisely based on this ground, so they knew or should have known that Emperatriz was aware of the alleged deficiency. They could have presented her testimony or obtained an admission during the original trial. A defendant’s default does not relieve the plaintiffs of their duty to present evidence supporting their allegations.
3. The plaintiffs’ claim that the sale was void as to Anastacia Feria’s conjugal share in the thresher lacked evidentiary support. Contrary to their claim, Exhibit 1 showed the thresher was purchased jointly by Severo Arce (married to Anastacia) and Roque de Jesus, proving Roque had an interest in the property.
Therefore, the deed of sale was valid, and the foreclosure based on the subsequent chattel mortgage could proceed. The appeals were dismissed.