Case Digest (G.R. No. 141863)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 141863)
Facts:
Basilio Rivera, Tomas Rivera, Cornelio Rivera and Ladislao Rivera v. The Honorable Court of Appeals, and Spouses Danilo Deato and Divina Legaspi, G.R. No. 141863, June 26, 2003, Supreme Court Third Division, Corona, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners Basilio Rivera et al. filed a complaint for quieting of title and cancellation of title on December 28, 1993 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Valenzuela, Branch 75 (Civil Case No. 4275‑V‑93), claiming ownership by acquisitive prescription over Lot 7 of the Malinta Estate. Respondents spouses Danilo Deato and Divina Legaspi contended the parcel was patrimonial land purchased by their predecessor, passed by inheritance and sale, and subsequently covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. V‑24759 issued by the Registry of Deeds of Valenzuela.
The RTC initially rendered judgment for petitioners on April 28, 1995, declaring them owners and ordering cancellation of defendants’ titles; on reconsideration the trial court vacated its earlier decision and entered judgment for respondents declaring their title valid and ordering plaintiffs to surrender possession. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s reversal in a decision dated April 20, 1999. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration before the Court of Appeals and later, on July 1, 1999, counsel moved for leave to file and admit a motion for new trial; the appellate court’s October 8, 1999 resolution granted leave to file but denied admission of the motion for new trial on the ground that the proffered document was not newly discovered evidence and was contrary to petitioners’ theory.
Petitioners sought relief in the Supreme Court by a petition for review under Rule 45, originally assigning error to the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that their motion for new trial rested on newly discovered evidence rather than on excusable negligence of prior counsel; the petition was later supplemented to include two additional assignments. The Court resolved the petition by denying it in a decision authored by Justice Corona.
Issues:
- Is the denial by the Court of Appeals of petitioners’ motion to admit a motion for new trial a proper subject of a petition for review under Rule 45 (i.e., is such interlocutory order appealable)?
- Assuming arguendo the order were appealable, did petitioners demonstrate excusable or gross negligence of their prior counsel sufficient to warrant a new trial under Rule 37, Sec. 1?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in upholding respondents’ title to the lot in question despite alleged patent errors (as raised in the supplemental assignment)?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)