G.R. No. L-40771. January 29, 1986.
ANGELINA SAMSON, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and HEIRS OF PRESBITERO VELASCO, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Angelina Samson applied for registration of three parcels of land in Ternate, Cavite, under Section 48 of the Public Land Act, claiming she and her predecessors-in-interest had possessed them openly, continuously, and notoriously for over 60 years. She acquired the lands through purchases in 1963. The registration of one parcel was unopposed and granted. The application for the remaining two parcels was opposed by Felicisima Rielo, who was later substituted by her sons, Presbitero and Pedro Velasco, upon her death. The Velasco heirs claimed ownership over these same parcels as part of a larger tract inherited from their parents, alleging possession for over thirty years. The trial court ruled in favor of Samson and ordered the lands registered in her name.
The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, dismissing Samson’s application and ordering the registration of the lands in the names of the Velasco heirs. Samson filed a motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence, consisting of two ancient documents (a 1910 tax receipt and a 1920 partition deed) and testimonies of four witnesses, which was denied. Samson then elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in its factual findings and in denying the motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the appellate court’s decision. The Court emphasized that Samson’s possession only commenced in 1963, and her application was filed in 1964. Thus, her right to register title depended entirely on whether her predecessors-in-interest had the required thirty years of open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession immediately preceding the application. The appellate court found this requisite possession lacking, a factual conclusion the Supreme Court saw no reason to overturn after careful scrutiny, as factual findings of the Court of Appeals are generally conclusive.
Regarding the motion for new trial, the Court ruled the proffered evidence did not qualify as newly discovered evidence under the Rules of Court. The testimonies of the four witnesses could have been discovered and presented during trial with due diligence. The ancient documents, produced only after eleven years of litigation and following the denial of a second motion for reconsideration, were not shown to be undiscoverable earlier with due diligence. Moreover, even if admitted, a 1910 tax receipt is a mere tax declaration, which does not constitute conclusive evidence of ownership or possession. The documents failed to specifically link the named predecessors to the disputed lands or prove the required period of possession. Therefore, the evidence would not probably change the result, and the denial of the new trial was proper.