Ybiernas v. Tanco-Gabaldon
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case originated from a dispute over a parcel of land initially owned by Estrella Mapa Vda. de Ybiernas. On April 28, 1988, Estrella executed a Deed of Absolute Sale over the property in favor of her heirs, including petitioners Manuel, Vicente, Maria Corazon, Violeta, and Valentin Ybiernas, and Dionisio Ybiernas. Subsequently, on October 29, 1991, respondents Ester Tanco-Gabaldon and Manila Bay Spinning Mills, Inc. filed a complaint for sum of money and damages against Estrella and others, alleging fraud in misrepresenting ownership and encumbrances on a property. Pursuant to this complaint, a writ of preliminary attachment was issued, leading to the levy and annotation of the subject property on its title. Procedural History: The Deed of Absolute Sale and an order from the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bacolod City directing its registration were annotated on the property's title on July 5, 1989. The levy on attachment by the respondents was annotated on November 13, 1991. The heirs of Estrella, including petitioners, filed a third-party claim asserting their ownership, but the levy was maintained. The Pasig City RTC ruled in favor of the respondents in the sum of money case. While that case was on appeal regarding interest rates, the heirs of Estrella filed a Complaint for Quieting of Title and Damages with the RTC of Bacolod City on November 28, 2001, arguing the levy was invalid as the property was no longer owned by Estrella. The RTC granted a summary judgment in favor of the petitioners, declaring the levy invalid and ordering its cancellation. Respondents appealed this decision. During the appeal, respondents filed a motion for new trial, presenting newly discovered evidence suggesting Cadastral Case No. 10, under which the deed of sale was allegedly registered, did not exist. The Court of Appeals granted the motion for new trial, remanding the case to the RTC. The Petition: Petitioners seek a review on certiorari of the Court of Appeals' Resolutions that granted respondents' motion for new trial. They argue that the RTC's summary judgment was a final and appealable decision, making the subsequent motion for new trial improper. Petitioners contend that the existence of Cadastral Case No. 10 was an admitted fact and could not be challenged through a motion for new trial. Furthermore, they assert that the evidence presented by respondents was not newly discovered and lacked probative value. Petitioners question the CA's ruling that the RTC decision was a proper subject of appeal and a motion for new trial, and that the admitted facts could be revisited. They also argue that the CA erred in failing to rule that no newly discovered evidence warranted a new trial.
Issue(s)
Whether the RTC decision, which left the amount of damages undetermined, was a final and appealable judgment subject to a motion for new trial. Whether respondents were precluded by judicial admission from questioning the existence of Cadastral Case No. 10. Whether the CA erred in granting a new trial based on newly discovered evidence.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Court of Appeals Resolutions dated January 31, 2007 and July 16, 2007 are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the appealability of the RTC decision: The Court held that the RTC summary judgment was a final and appealable judgment. A final judgment is one that finally disposes of a case, leaving nothing more for the court to do. The RTC decision fully determined the rights and obligations of the parties concerning the quieting of title, leaving only the amount of damages unresolved. This is permissible under Rule 35, Section 3 of the Rules of Court, which allows summary judgment except as to the amount of damages, while still permitting judgment on the issue of the right to damages. Therefore, the RTC judgment was final and appealable, and the CA properly acquired jurisdiction. On the issue of judicial admission: The Court sustained the CA's ruling that respondents were not precluded from questioning the existence of Cadastral Case No. 10. A judicial admission dispenses with the need for proof, but it can be contradicted by showing palpable mistake or that no such admission was made. Respondents admitted the existence of the Order dated June 30, 1989, but not necessarily the existence of the entire Cadastral Case No. 10 from which it emanated. They relied in good faith on the presumed regularity of the Order presented by petitioners. To prevent them from proving the Order is spurious by showing the non-existence of the case would be prejudicial and unfair, thus, the admission should not be extended to cover the existence of the case itself. On the grant of a new trial based on newly discovered evidence: The Court affirmed the CA's grant of a new trial. For a new trial to be granted based on newly discovered evidence, four requisites must be met: (1) evidence discovered after trial; (2) could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence; (3) material, not merely cumulative; and (4) would probably change the judgment. The Court found that respondents relied in good faith on the presumed regularity of the RTC Order, making it impractical to discover the non-existence of the case earlier. The certifications presented, if proven to be valid, could significantly alter the outcome of the case by invalidating the basis of the levy. Therefore, the evidence qualified as newly discovered, and the CA did not abuse its discretion in granting the new trial.
Main Doctrine
A summary judgment that fully determines the rights and obligations of the parties on the merits, leaving only the amount of damages for determination, is a final and appealable judgment. A motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence may be granted if the evidence was discovered after trial, could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence, is material, and would likely change the judgment, especially when the movant relied in good faith on the presumed regularity of a court order.