I. Title: Bernadez v. Francia
G.R. No. 143929. February 28, 2003 Bernaldezs Motion for New Trial: newly discovered evidence, TCT covering
II. Doctrine
Motion for new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence shall be granted when
the concurrence of the following requisites is established: (a) the evidence is discovered
after trial; (b) the evidence could not have been discovered and produced during trial even
with the exercise of reasonable diligence; and (c) the evidence is material and not merely
corroborative, cumulative or impeaching and is of such weight that if admitted, would
probably change the judgment.
In order that a particular piece of evidence may be regarded as newly discovered for
purposes of granting a new trial, it is essential to show that the offering party exercised
reasonable diligence in seeking to locate such evidence before or during trial but had
nonetheless failed to secure it.
III. Facts
Francia is the owner of a residential lot of 1k sqm, adjoining it is a parcel of land
owned by Sps. Bernaldez with 114sqm. The buildings and improvements on Francias
lot were destroyed by fire. Sunsequently, Bernaldezs built their kitchen and in the
process encroached upon a portion of 19sqm on Francias lot which was confirmed
after Francias had it resurveyed. After several demands to vacate, Bernaldezs did not
comply, Francia then filed a complaint with RTC to determine who is the rightful
owner of the area.
Francia & Bernaldezs nominated their surveyors, Engr. Santamaria and Engr. Mercad
respectively. Santamaria: encroached by 19sqm & appoved by Bureau of Lands;
Mercado: did not contain the same, approval pending. RTC was able to establish
common boundary tho could not determine concusively to whom the area belongs to,
hence directed Director of the Bureau of Lands to appoint geodetic engineer and
undertake resurvey. Director appointed Engr. de Lara whose report stated that
Bernaldezs did encroach by 17sqm of Francias lot.
RTC: Bernaldezs encroached by 17sqm.
Francias lot referred to another lot owned by Tupazs. RTC: denied for lack of
merit.
CA: RTC affirmed. MR denied.
IV. Issues
(1) Whether CA erred in affirming the decision of RTC denying the motion for new trial.
(NO)
V. Held
Motion for new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence shall be granted when
the concurrence of the following requisites is established: (a) the evidence is discovered
after trial; (b) the evidence could not have been discovered and produced during trial even
with the exercise of reasonable diligence; and (c) the evidence is material and not merely
corroborative, cumulative or impeaching and is of such weight that if admitted, would
probably change the judgment.
In order that a particular piece of evidence may be regarded as newly discovered for
purposes of granting a new trial, it is essential to show that the offering party exercised
reasonable diligence in seeking to locate such evidence before or during trial but had
nonetheless failed to secure it.
In this case, evidence offered does not satisfy the requisites, although petitioners found out
about the existence of said TCT only after trial, they could have easily discovered the same
before or during the trial of the case had they bothered to check the TCT of respondents lot
to ascertain whether or not it overlapped with their own lot.
In any case, the title offered is not material since it is apparent that it refers to a different
title, different parcels = different title numbers. Petition denied, CA affirmed.