Dioso v. CardeÑo
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns a claim for an easement of right of way and specific performance. The petitioners, Spouses Ramon and Felicisima Dioso, sought to establish a right of way to F. Gomez Street through the property of the respondents, Spouses Tomas and Leonora Cardeño. This claim was based on a purported agreement, the "Pinanumpaang Salaysay," executed between respondent Leonora Cardeño and Encarnacion Javel, the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest, concerning the partition and sale of Lot 248-A. 2. Procedural History: The petitioners filed a complaint for specific performance and/or easement of right of way with damages against the respondents. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the complaint, finding that the petitioners failed to prove the due execution of the "Pinanumpaang Salaysay" as they only presented a photocopy and did not lay the foundation for secondary evidence. The RTC also noted that even if a voluntary easement existed, the petitioners were obliged to pay indemnity, which they were unwilling to do. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision, deleting the award of attorney's fees, and reiterated its ruling upon denying the petitioners' motion for reconsideration/new trial. The CA found that the submitted photocopy of the "Pinanumpaang Salaysay" was inadmissible as best evidence and that the proffered new evidence was not newly discovered. 3. The Petition: The petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to reverse the CA's resolution denying their motion for reconsideration/new trial. They argued that the CA erred in not admitting the certified photocopy of the "Pinanumpaang Salaysay" as secondary evidence, asserting that its existence and due execution were sufficiently established by other evidence, including a tax declaration with an annotation and the affidavit of a witness. They also contended that the failure to present the original was due to excusable negligence of their former counsel and that the document was material and could change the judgment.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying the petitioners' motion for reconsideration/new trial. Whether the petitioners sufficiently established the existence and due execution of the Pinanumpaang Salaysay by secondary evidence. Whether the petitioners are entitled to an easement of right of way based on the Pinanumpaang Salaysay.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The assailed CA Decision and Resolution are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Respondents are DIRECTED to grant petitioners an easement of right of way in accordance with the Pinanumpaang Salaysay dated May 29, 1977.
Ratio Decidendi
On the denial of the motion for reconsideration/new trial: The Court affirmed the CA's ruling that the evidence submitted by the petitioners was not newly discovered. The Tax Declaration and the certified photocopy of the Pinanumpaang Salaysay existed prior to the trial. The Court emphasized that for evidence to be considered newly discovered, the offering party must show that they exercised reasonable diligence to discover and produce it during the trial but failed to do so. The petitioners' failure to present these documents was attributed to the negligence of their former counsel, and clients are generally bound by such mistakes. On the admissibility of secondary evidence: The Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, holding that they sufficiently established the existence and due execution of the Pinanumpaang Salaysay by secondary evidence. The Court cited Section 5, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, which allows proof of a document's contents by a copy, recital in an authentic document, or witness testimony when the original is lost, destroyed, or cannot be produced without bad faith. The testimony of Yldeso, a witness to the document, established its due execution. The testimony of Veneranda Legaspi, coupled with the Deed of Absolute Sale between Encarnacion Javel and Felicidad Legaspi, further supported the existence and unavailability of the original document. On the entitlement to an easement of right of way: Having established the existence and due execution of the Pinanumpaang Salaysay through admissible secondary evidence, the Court found that the respondents are obliged to grant the petitioners, as successors-in-interest of Encarnacion Eraña Javel, a right of way in accordance with the terms of the said document. The Court noted that the respondents' denial of the document's genuineness was perfunctory, and they did not categorically deny its existence or execution even when given the opportunity. The Court concluded that the trial court and the CA erred in disregarding the photocopy of the Pinanumpaang Salaysay as secondary evidence.
Main Doctrine
The Court reiterated that for newly discovered evidence to be a ground for new trial, it must be discovered after trial, could not have been discovered and produced during trial even with reasonable diligence, and must be material and not merely corroborative, cumulative or impeaching, and of such weight that if admitted, would probably change the judgment. The Court also affirmed that secondary evidence is admissible to prove the contents of a lost or destroyed original document, provided there is proof of its execution or existence and the cause of its unavailability without bad faith on the part of the offeror.