G.R. No. L-2368

FACTS:
Plaintiff-appellant Cirilo Estrella filed an action concerning the title and possession of a building lot. The trial court established that: (1) the lot originally belonged to Estrella by inheritance; (2) on May 14, 1884, Estrella sold the lot to Carlos Zamora for 660 pesos, with 200 pesos paid at the time of sale; and (3) Carlos Zamora possessed the lot until his death in 1889, after which his children, defendants-appellees Bonifacio Zamora and Jose Zamora, succeeded in possession. The trial court ruled in favor of the defendants, declaring them lawful owners.

On appeal, Estrella admitted the sale and initial 200-peso payment but contested that the balance of 460 pesos was ever paid. The defendants presented evidence, including testimony from Bonifacio Zamora, of subsequent payments: 100 pesos delivered to Anselmo Ventura by Estrella’s order, and 258 pesos worth of jewels given to Estrella to sell on commission, with proceeds to be applied to the balance. Estrella failed to include the supporting documents (a receipt, telegrams, and a list of jewels) in the bill of exceptions. He also assigned error in the admission of the list of jewels and the denial of his motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence.

ISSUE:
1. Whether the trial court erred in finding that the full purchase price for the lot had been paid.
2. Whether the trial court erred in admitting the list of jewels as evidence.
3. Whether the trial court erred in denying the motion for a new trial.

RULING:
The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the trial court’s judgment.

1. On the payment of the purchase price: The Court held that the plaintiff-appellant, having failed to include the material documents in the bill of exceptions, must suffer the consequences. In their absence, the contents as described by the defendant’s uncontradicted testimony must be accepted. The testimony sufficiently established payment of the entire 660 pesos, including the 200-peso down payment, the 100 pesos delivered to Ventura, the 258 pesos in jewels, and the remaining balance.

2. On the admission of the list of jewels: The Court ruled that the list was properly admitted. Even assuming the list was made in favor of Tiburcia Reyes (the defendants’ mother), the testimony showed the jewels belonged to Carlos Zamora and were given to Estrella with the agreement that their sale proceeds would be applied to the land’s purchase price, making the evidence pertinent.

3. On the denial of the motion for a new trial: The Court held that the motion was properly denied. The supporting affidavit merely stated the witness’s opinion that a found document was “important,” without providing facts for the court to assess its materiality. Moreover, the grant or denial of a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence is a discretionary act of the trial judge, which is not reviewable on appeal under Section 146 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Costs were taxed against the appellant.