G.R. No. 178925 - Ybiernas vs. Tanco-Gabaldon

Case Summary (G.R. No. 178925)

Factual Background

The subject is a parcel of land in Talisay, Negros Occidental, titled in the name of Estrella Mapa Vda. de Ybiernas under TCT No. T-83976. Estrella executed a Deed of Absolute Sale dated April 28, 1988 in favor of her heirs including petitioners and Dionisio Ybiernas. An order of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 47, Bacolod City dated June 30, 1989, in Cadastral Case No. 10 directed registration and annotation of that deed on the title, and the deed and order were annotated on July 5, 1989 as Entries Nos. 334150 and 334151. In 1991 respondents filed a complaint in the RTC of Pasig City for sum of money and damages against Estrella and others, obtained a writ of preliminary attachment, and had the subject property levied and the notice of attachment annotated as Entry No. 346816 on TCT No. T-83976.

Procedural History in the Pasig Action and Execution

The Pasig RTC granted the complaint for sum of money in favor of respondents and ordered Estrella and co-defendants to pay P6,000,000 plus interest and damages; that judgment was appealed and the appeal was eventually denied by this Court in a Minute Resolution dated November 20, 2002, which became final and executory on April 14, 2003. Respondents filed an indemnity bond during the attachment proceedings and the sheriff refused to lift the levy.

Petitioners’ Quieting Action and Trial Court Disposition

Petitioners filed in the RTC of Bacolod City a complaint for Quieting of Title and Damages on November 28, 2001, asserting that the annotated deed and RTC Order gave notice that ownership had been transferred to them and that the levy was invalid. During pre-trial the parties admitted the existence of the RTC Order dated June 30, 1989. Petitioners moved for summary judgment. After initial denial and reconsideration, the RTC rendered summary judgment on December 27, 2005, declaring the attachment levy invalid and ordering cancellation of Entry No. 346816, and otherwise disposing of the merits except for the amount of damages.

Court of Appeals Proceedings and Motion for New Trial

Respondents appealed the RTC judgment and, while the appeal was pending, filed a motion for new trial before the Court of Appeals alleging newly discovered evidence that Cadastral Case No. 10 never existed and that the April 28, 1988 Deed of Sale was simulated. Respondents attached certifications from court clerks in Bacolod and from the National Archives stating that no such cadastral case or deed was on file, and an affidavit of counsel documenting the research. The Court of Appeals granted the motion for new trial in Resolutions dated January 31, 2007 and denied reconsideration on July 16, 2007, and remanded the case for new trial.

The Parties’ Contentions Before the Supreme Court

Petitioners challenged the CA Resolutions by petition for certiorari, arguing principally that (a) the RTC decision was a partial or interlocutory summary judgment because it left the amount of damages unresolved and thus was not appealable or a proper subject of a motion for new trial under Section 1, Rule 53; (b) respondents were bound by their judicial admission during pre-trial of the existence of Cadastral Case No. 10 and therefore could not introduce evidence to contradict that admission; and (c) the purported newly discovered evidence lacked probative value and could have been discovered with reasonable diligence. Respondents maintained they learned of the nonexistence of the cadastral case only after judgment and that the certifications constitute material newly discovered evidence that would probably change the judgment.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

The petition presented three principal questions: whether the RTC decision was a final judgment and thus appealable and a proper subject of a motion for new trial under Rule 53; whether respondents were precluded by judicial admission from challenging the existence of the cadastral proceedings; and whether respondents adduced newly discovered evidence sufficient to warrant a new trial.

The Court’s Disposition on Finality and Appealability

The Court held that the RTC summary judgment was final and appealable. The Court explained that a final judgment is one that finally disposes of the case and that a summary judgment that resolves the rights and obligations on the merits is final even if it leaves only the amount of damages to be determined, because under Section 3, Rule 35 a summary judgment may not be rendered on the amount of damages but may decide the right to damages. The Court distinguished the case from authorities where summary judgment left unresolved the right to damages and concluded that the RTC had adjudicated all issues on the merits except the quantum.

The Court’s Ruling on Judicial Admission

The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ view that respondents’ pre-trial admission was limited to the existence of the order dated June 30, 1989 and did not necessarily admit the existence of the cadastral proceedings themselves. The Court reaffirmed the rule that a judicial admission dispenses with the need for proof but may be contradicted when shown to be the result of palpable mistake or where surrounding circumstances justify a narrower construction of the admission. Given that respondents asserted they relied in good faith on the presented order and the presumption of regularity in official acts, it would be prejudicial to bar them from proving the order’s spuriousness by showing the absence of the underlying cadastral case.

The Court’s Analysis on Newly Discovered Evidence and Due Diligence

The Court applied the settled fourfold test for granting a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence: that the evidence was discovered after trial; that it could not have been discovered and produced at trial with the exercise of reasonable diligence; that it is material and not merely cumulative, corroborative, or impeaching; and that it is of such weight that it would probably change the judgment. Citing Custodio v. Sandiganbayan, the Court emphasized that the critical inquiry is whether the movant exercised reasonable diligence to locate the evidence before or during trial. The Court found respondents exercised reasonable diligence because they had relied in good faith on the purportedly regular order presented by petitioners and because the certifications and archival inquiries were obtained only after that reliance and only after ju

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 178925)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Manuel Ybiernas, Vicente Ybiernas, Maria Corazon Angeles, Violeta Ybiernas, and Valentin Ybiernas were the petitioners before the Supreme Court.
Ester Tanco-Gaballdon, Manila Bay Spinning Mills, Inc., and the Sheriff of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 163 were the respondents in the Supreme Court.
The petition for review on certiorari assailed the Court of Appeals Resolutions dated January 31, 2007 and July 16, 2007 which granted respondents a motion for new trial.
The underlying action concerned a Complaint for Quieting of Title and Damages filed by the petitioners in the Regional Trial Court of Bacolod City.

Key Factual Allegations

Estrella Mapa Vda. de Ybiernas was the registered owner of a parcel of land in Talisay, Negros Occidental covered by TCT No. T-83976.
Estrella executed a Deed of Absolute Sale dated April 28, 1988, purportedly in favor of Dionisio Ybiernas and petitioners, which was annotated on the title on July 5, 1989 as Entry No. 334151.
The RTC, Branch 47, Bacolod City allegedly issued an Order dated June 30, 1989 in Cadastral Case No. 10 directing registration and annotation of the Deed of Absolute Sale.
Ester Tanco-Gaballdon and Manila Bay Spinning Mills, Inc. filed a Complaint in the RTC of Pasig City on October 29, 1991 for P6,000,000.00 alleging fraud in connection with another property.
The Pasig RTC issued a writ of preliminary attachment on November 6, 1991, and the sheriff levied the Bacolod property with the notice of attachment annotated as Entry No. 346816 on TCT No. T-83976 on November 13, 1991.
A third-party claim by Dionisio was filed on January 14, 1992, and respondents later obtained a judgment in the Pasig case which became final and executory after this Court denied their appeal.

Procedural History

Petitioners filed a Complaint for Quieting of Title and Damages in the RTC of Bacolod City on November 28, 2001.
The parties admitted during pre-trial the existence of the Order dated June 30, 1989 by RTC Branch 47 in Cadastral Case No. 10 concerning TCT No. T-83976.
Petitioners filed a motion for summary judgment on July 30, 2004 which the RTC initially denied on December 23, 2004 and then granted on reconsideration on December 27, 2005.
The RTC rendered summary judgment declaring the attachment levy invalid and cancelling Entry No. 346816 while reserving only the determination of the amount of damages.
Respondents filed a notice of appeal which was granted by the RTC and, while the appeal was pending in the Court of Appeals, they filed a motion for new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence on May 9, 2006.
The Court of Appeals granted the motion for new trial on January 31, 2007 and denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration on July 16, 2007.
Petitioners then filed the present petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Issues Presented

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the RTC decision was a proper subject of appeal and of a motion for new trial under Rule 53 of the Rules of Court.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in failing to rule that a motion for new trial is an improper remedy to question facts already admitted.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding that respondents adduced newly discovered evidence sufficient to warrant a new trial.

Parties' Contentions

Petitioners contended that the RTC decision was a partial summary judgment and therefore interlocutory and not appealable un