CIVIL PROCEDURE New Trial Mendezona vs.Ozamis

 Mendezona vs.Ozamis

F: A suit for quieting of title was filed by Mendezona alleging they own land in Cebu. Their titles was executed by Ozamiz. Thereafter, there is an inscription in the title of notice of lis pendens, there is a proceeding for guardianship over the person and properties of Ozamiz. Ozamiz (Montalvan) alleged that the titles issued in the petitioners names are defective and illegal.

Trial on the merits ensued Mendezona testified on the circumstances surrounding the sale and the notary public who notarized the said document. Defendants: the testimonies of a sister, assistant, helper, appraiser of land, doctor  etc. of Ozamiz.

RTC in favor of Mendezona. CA reversed.

Petitioners filed a MR and subsequently a motion for a new trial and/or for reception of evidence. That CA ignored the testimony of the Judge regarding the mental condition of Ozamiz a month before the execution of the Sale in question. However, Judge was not presented as a witness. That Judge’s testimony is a newly-discovered evidence which could not have been discovered prior to the trial in the court below by the exercise of due diligence. CA DENIED.

I: WON there should be a new trial

A motion for new trial upon the ground of newly discovered evidence is properly granted only where there is concurrence of the following requisites, namely: (a) the evidence had been 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 alter the result. All three (3) requisites must characterize the evidence sought to be introduced at the new trial.

Here, the requirement of reasonable diligence has not been met by the petitioners. As early as the pre-trial of the case at bar, the name of Judge  has already cropped up as a possible witness for the defendants. That the respondents chose not to present him is not suppression of evidence. Neither can Judge’s testimony in another case be considered as newly discovered evidence since the facts to be testified were existing before and during the trial, could have been presented by the petitioners at the trial below. RTC DECISION IS REINSTATED.