Facts:
Manuel Ybiernas, Vicente Ybiernas, Maria Corazon Angeles, Violeta Ybiernas, and
Valentin Ybiernas were heirs who claimed ownership over a parcel of land in Talisay, Negros Occidental originally titled in the name of
Estrella Mapa Vda. de Ybiernas, evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale dated April 28, 1988 and an alleged Order of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 47, Bacolod City dated June 30, 1989 directing registration and annotation on Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-83976, annotated July 5, 1989. On October 29, 1991,
Ester Tanco-Gabaldon and
Manila Bay Spinning Mills, Inc. filed in the RTC of Pasig City a complaint for sum of money and damages and obtained a writ of preliminary attachment which resulted in the annotation of the levy as Entry No. 346816 on TCT No. T-83976 on November 13, 1991; Dionisio Ybiernas filed an Affidavit of Third-Party Claim on January 14, 1992 and respondents filed an indemnity bond, the Pasig RTC ultimately ruled in respondents' favor and the judgment became final in 2003. Petitioners thereafter filed, on November 28, 2001, in the RTC of Bacolod City a Complaint for Quieting of Title and Damages asserting the prior sale and RTC Order annotation, and during pre-trial the parties admitted the existence of the June 30, 1989 Order. Petitioners moved for summary judgment; after an initial denial the RTC granted summary judgment on December 27, 2005 declaring the levy invalid and cancelling Entry No. 346816 while leaving only the amount of damages to be determined. Respondents filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA) and, while the appeal was pending, moved for a
motion for new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence discovered on May 9, 2006 asserting that Cadastral Case No. 10 did not exist and the deed was simulated, submitting certifications from RTC clerks and the National Archives; the CA granted the motion on January 31, 2007 and denied reconsideration on July 16, 2007, whereupon petitioners sought review by this Court.
Issues:
Is the RTC judgment rendered on December 27, 2005 a final, appealable
summary judgment such that the appeal was properly perfected and a
motion for new trial under Section 1, Rule 53 of the Rules of Court could be filed? Did respondents' admission at pre-trial of the “Order dated June 30, 1989” constitute a judicial admission of the existence of
Cadastral Case No. 10 that would preclude introduction of evidence to prove nonexistence of that cadastral case? Did respondents present *newly discovered evidence* that could not have been found with due diligence and that is of such weight as would probably change the judgment so as to justify the grant of a new trial?
Ruling:
Ratio:
Doctrine: