Crispino v. Tansay
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Anatolia Tansay, twice widowed, established a close relationship with Zenaida Capili, whom she treated as her own child. Anatolia acquired a parcel of land (Lot No. 1048) in Cebu City, which she subdivided. She executed two deeds of sale: one for Lot No. 1048-A-1 in favor of Zenaida on July 6, 1981, and another for Lot No. 1048-A-3 in favor of Zenaida's daughters, petitioners Luz Anatolia E. Crispino and Caridad C. Echaves, on July 11, 1989. Zenaida later discovered the titles missing and filed a petition for reconstitution, which was granted. Subsequently, Anatolia filed a civil case seeking the revocation of trust, declaration of nullity of transfer, and cancellation of titles. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of Anatolia, declaring her the lawful owner of Lot Nos. 1048-A-1 and 1048-A-3, ordering the cancellation of the titles issued to the petitioners, and reinstating Anatolia's title. The RTC found that the deeds of sale were invalid as no monetary or valuable consideration was paid, and Anatolia never intended to sell the lots but merely constituted the transferees as trustees. The RTC also questioned the validity of Zenaida's petition for reconstitution. The petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). During the appeal, Anatolia died and was substituted by Lilian Tan Yap. The petitioners filed an Urgent Motion to Remand Records for Re-Opening of Trial, attaching an alleged "Confirmation of Previous Sales" purportedly executed by Anatolia on January 15, 1998. The CA denied this motion, treating it as a motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence and finding the document not to be such. The CA then affirmed the RTC's decision. The petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Petitioners filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari, assailing the CA's Decision and Resolution. They argued that the CA erred in treating their motion to remand as a motion for new trial and that the CA has the power to receive evidence under Section 9 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by Republic Act No. 7902. They prayed for the CA's decision to be vacated and for the CA to receive the "Confirmation of Previous Sales" as evidence.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in treating petitioners' motion to remand as a motion for new trial under Rule 53 of the Rules of Court. Whether the Court of Appeals' power to grant new trials is limited to motions based on newly discovered evidence. Whether an interlocutory order may be assailed in an appeal of the appellate court's Decision.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The Supreme Court AFFIRMS the January 24, 2007 Decision and August 28, 2008 Resolution of the Court of Appeals.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the Court of Appeals erred in treating the motion to remand as a motion for new trial: The Court found that the Court of Appeals correctly treated the petitioners' motion to remand as a motion for new trial under Rule 53 of the Rules of Court. The petitioners sought the introduction of new evidence, which falls under the purview of a motion for new trial. The Court emphasized that while Section 9 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by Republic Act No. 7902, grants the Court of Appeals the power to receive evidence to resolve factual issues, this power is qualified by its internal rules. In ordinary appeals, such as the civil case at bar, the CA may only receive evidence when it grants a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. On whether the Court of Appeals' power to grant new trials is limited to motions based on newly discovered evidence: The Court affirmed that in ordinary appeals in civil cases, the Court of Appeals' power to receive evidence is limited to granting a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence, as provided for in Section 3(b) of the 2002 Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals and Section 1, Rule 53 of the Rules of Court. The Court clarified that the document presented by the petitioners, the "Confirmation of Previous Sales," did not qualify as newly discovered evidence. Although it was allegedly executed after the trial, it was not shown that it could not have been discovered prior to the trial with due diligence, and more importantly, it was not of such a character as would probably change the result of the case. The validity of the deeds of sale could be determined independently of this document. On the issue of assailing an interlocutory order in an appeal of the final decision: The Court held that petitioners did not commit any procedural infirmity in assailing the interlocutory order (CA's Resolution denying the motion to remand) in an appeal of the Court of Appeals' final decision. While petitioners could have filed a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, they were not precluded from raising the issue of the interlocutory order in their appeal of the final judgment. The rule against piecemeal appeals is to prevent undue delay, and assailing an interlocutory order in the appeal of the final judgment is a recognized option. The Court cited Investments, Inc. v. Court of Appeals to support the principle that an interlocutory order may be questioned on appeal as part of an appeal from the final judgment.
Main Doctrine
In an ordinary appeal, the Court of Appeals may receive evidence only when a motion for new trial is granted based on newly discovered evidence, as qualified by its internal rules. The power to receive evidence in original jurisdiction cases is broader than in appellate civil cases.