G.R. No. L-17647 June 16, 1965
HERMINIA GODUCO, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and MARIA B. CASTRO, respondents.

FACTS

The Supreme Court had previously rendered a judgment on February 28, 1964, affirming the findings of the Court of First Instance of Manila and the Court of Appeals. The petitioner, Herminia Goduco, filed a Motion for Reconsideration and/or New Trial, which was denied. She then filed a Second Motion for Reconsideration and/or New Trial, alleging “newly discovered evidence.” This evidence consisted of a receipt purportedly thumb-marked by Mauricia Dionisio, the owner of a lot, stating she received P50,000 from the late Maria B. Castro as full payment for the land. The sale of this land was the subject of Goduco’s claim for a commission. Meanwhile, it was manifested that the administratrix of the Intestate Estate of Maria B. Castro had filed a Complaint for Reconveyance against Sostenes Campillo involving the same land, and that Goduco had already presented her money claim against the estate in the probate proceedings (Sp. Proc. No. 52975), which claim was admitted by the probate court.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court can entertain a second motion for reconsideration and/or new trial based on allegedly newly discovered evidence after it has affirmed the factual findings of the lower courts.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the Second Motion for Reconsideration and/or New Trial. The Court held that it had no jurisdiction to entertain a motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence in an appeal by certiorari, as such a motion involves only questions of fact. The Court’s decision had affirmed the factual conclusions of the Court of Appeals, whose findings are conclusive on the facts and cannot be reviewed by the Supreme Court. Furthermore, the issues raised were rendered moot or academic by the subsequent developments: the filing of a reconveyance case by the estate and the admission of Goduco’s money claim in the probate proceedings.