Case Digest (G.R. No. 150155)
Facts:
Spouses Ramon and Felicisima Dioso v. Spouses Tomas and Leonora Cardeno, G.R. No. 150155, September 01, 2004, Supreme Court Second Division, Callejo, Sr., J., writing for the Court.
Lot 248-A (222 sq. m.) originally belonged to Magno Erana and was adjudicated in favor of Leonora Erana Cardeno and her sisters. Lot 248-A was later partitioned: the frontal portion fronting F. Gomez St. became the property of respondents Spouses Tomas and Leonora Cardeno, who built a house thereon in 1972; the interior portion became the share of Encarnacion Erana Javel (now deceased). Encarnacion sold her portion to Felicidad Legaspi, who later sold it to petitioners Spouses Ramon and Felicisima Dioso.
After acquiring Encarnacion’s portion, petitioners sought an outlet to F. Gomez St. and asserted entitlement to a right of way under a written memorandum titled Pinanumpaang Salaysay dated May 29, 1977, allegedly executed by Leonora and Encarnacion. When respondents refused to grant access, petitioners filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), San Pedro, Laguna, Branch 31, Civil Case No. B-4515, a complaint for specific performance and/or an easement of right of way with damages.
At trial petitioners offered a photocopy of the Pinanumpaang Salaysay and witness testimony to prove its execution and the nonavailability of the original. The RTC (Decision dated April 23, 1999) dismissed the complaint, finding the photocopy inadmissible because petitioners failed to lay the foundation for secondary evidence and failed to prove the due execution of the document; the trial court also held that, assuming a voluntary easement existed, petitioners should have been willing to pay indemnity and awarded P30,000 attorneys’ fees.
The Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 63265 rendered a Decision dated May 9, 2001 substantially affirming the RTC, but deleted the award of attorneys’ fees for lack of justification; the CA applied Rule 130, Secs. 3 and 5 (best evidence rule and its exceptions) and held the photocopy inadmissible absent proof of the unavailability of the original. Petitioners moved for reconsideration/new trial before the CA and submitted (1) Tax Declaration No. 51637 (1992) bearing an annotation referencing the Pinanumpaang Salaysay; (2) a photocopy of the Pinanumpaang Salaysay certified by the Municipal Assessor as verified against the original; and (3) an affidavit of Magtanggol Yldeso, a purported witness. In a Resolution dated September 28, 2001 the CA denied the motion for reconsideration/new trial, holding the proffered documents were not newly discovered (they existed prior to trial and could have been obtained with reasonable diligence) and reiterating its Decision.
(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals commit reversible error in denying the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration/new trial on the ground that the proffered documents were not newly discovered?
- Were petitioners entitled to have the photocopy and testimonial evidence admitted as secondary evidence to prove the Pinanumpaang Salaysay and, on that basis, entitled to...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)