Title
Supreme Court
Crispino vs. Tansay
Case
G.R. No. 184466
Decision Date
Dec 5, 2016
Anatolia Tansay contested property transfers to Zenaida Capili and her children, alleging no payment. Courts upheld Anatolia’s ownership, rejecting new evidence claims. Supreme Court affirmed, denying petitioners’ appeal.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 184466)

Applicable Law

The case involves the interpretation of the powers of the Court of Appeals regarding the reception of evidence as governed by Section 9 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by Republic Act No. 7902, and the Rules of Court, particularly Rule 53 regarding motions for new trial based on newly discovered evidence.

Background of the Case

The legal dispute originates from a case filed by respondent Anatolia Tansay against the petitioners in the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City concerning the revocation of a trust, declaration of nullity of property transfers, and cancellation of titles to several parcels of land that were allegedly sold to petitioners by Tansay. The nature of the relationship between Tansay and the Echaves family, particularly Zenaida, shapes the context of the case as it indicates a familial bond that complicates the legal proceedings.

Initial Court Findings

The Regional Trial Court ultimately ruled in favor of Tansay, declaring her the rightful owner of the disputed properties and ordering the cancellation of the titles in favor of the petitioners. The court found that the purported deeds of sale were invalid as Tansay had not intended to sell the properties outright but rather had constituted the Echaves as trustees.

Appeal to the Court of Appeals

Following the decision, the petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals. During the proceedings, Tansay passed away, and her legal heir, Lilian Yap, substituted her as the respondent. The petitioners sought to remand the case back to the Regional Trial Court, claiming the discovery of a new document that purported to confirm the validity of the property sales executed by Tansay.

Urgent Motion to Remand and Denial

The Court of Appeals treated the petitioners' motion to remand as a request for a new trial under Rule 53 of the Rules of Court, ultimately denying the motion on the grounds that the evidence presented did not meet the criteria of "newly discovered evidence" and that the necessary requirements for such a motion were not met, particularly the failure to attach an affidavit of merit.

Court of Appeals Decision

On January 24, 2007, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Regional Trial Court's ruling in full, leading to a motion for reconsideration by the petitioners. The appellate court reiterated its position in a resolution dated August 28, 2008, once again denying the petitioners' requests, which set the stage for the petition to the Supreme Court.

Arguments Presented by Petitioners

In their petition to the Supreme Court, the petitioners contended that the Court of Appeals should have classified their motion differently and that it had the authority to receive new evidence under its expanded powers, arguing that failing to do so constituted a misuse of discretion.

Respondent's Position

The respondent, represented by Lilian Yap, argued the timing of the new evidence's discovery was suspicious and that petitioners were not appealing the factual findings themselves but rather contesting an interlocutory order, which has its own procedural limitations under the Rules of Court.

Substantive and Procedural Issues

The Court had to address two crucial questions: whether the Court of Appeals erred in treating the motion as one for a new trial rather than a request to receive evidence and whether an interlocutory order could be subject to a

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.