6 Ybiernas v. Tanco-Gabaldon

5/24/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 650
G.R. No. 178925. June 1, 2011.*
MANUEL YBIERNAS, VICENTE YBIERNAS, MARIA

CORAZON ANGELES, VIOLETA YBIERNAS, and
VALENTIN YBIERNAS, petitioners, vs. ESTER TANCO-
GABALDON, MANILA BAY SPINNING MILLS, INC., and
THE SHERIFF OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF
PASIG CITY, BRANCH 163, respondents.
Remedial Law; New Trial; Only a final judgment or order, as

opposed to an interlocutory order, may be the subject of a motion
for new trial.—The issue of whether the RTC judgment is a final
judgment is indeed crucial. If the judgment were not final, it
would be an improper subject of an appeal. Hence, no appeal
would have been perfected before the CA, and the latter would not
have acquired jurisdiction over the entire case, including the
motion for new trial. But more importantly, only a final judgment
or order, as opposed to an interlocutory order, may be the subject
of a motion for new trial.
Same; Summary Judgment; Just like any other judgment, a
summary judgment that satisfies the requirements of a final
judgment will be considered as such.—A final judgment or order is
one that finally disposes of a case, leaving nothing more for the
court to do in respect thereto, such as an adjudication on the
merits which, on the basis of the evidence presented at the trial,
declares categorically what the rights and obligations of the
parties are and which party is in the right, or a judgment or order
that dismisses an action on the ground of res judicata or
prescription, for instance. Just like any other judgment, a
summary judgment that satisfies the requirements of a final
judgment will be considered as such.
Same; Same; A summary judgment is granted to settle
expeditiously a case if, on motion of either party, there appears
from the pleadings, depositions, admissions, and affidavits that no
important issues of fact are involved, except the amount of
damages.—A summary judgment is granted to settle
expeditiously a case if, on motion of either party, there appears
from the pleadings, depositions, admissions, and affidavits that no
important issues of fact are involved,
_______________
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016aea1ee096eadbc081003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/18
* SECOND DIVISION.
155
VOL. 650, JUNE 1, 2011 155
Ybiernas vs. Tanco-Gabaldon
except the amount of damages. The RTC judgment in this case

fully determined the rights and obligations of the parties relative
to the case for quieting of title and left no other issue unresolved,
except the amount of damages. Hence, it is a final judgment.
Same; Same; A summary judgment may not be rendered on
the amount of damages, although such judgment may be rendered
on the issue of the right to damages.—In leaving out the
determination of the amount of damages, the RTC did not remove
its summary judgment from the category of final judgments. In
fact, under Section 3, Rule 35 of the Rules of Court, a summary
judgment may not be rendered on the amount of damages,
although such judgment may be rendered on the issue of the right
to damages.
Same; Pleadings and Practice; Judicial Admission; A judicial
admission is an admission, verbal or written, made by a party in
the course of the proceedings in the same case, which dispenses
with the need for the proof with respect for the matter or fact
admitted.—A judicial admission is an admission, verbal or
written, made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the
same case, which dispenses with the need for proof with respect to
the matter or fact admitted. It may be contradicted only by a
showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that no
such admission was made.
Same; Same; Same; In construing an admission, the court
should consider the purpose for which the admission is used and
the surrounding circumstances and statements.—During the pre-
trial, respondents categorically admitted the existence of the
Order dated June 30, 1989 only. The Court cannot extend such
admission to the existence of Cadastral Case No. 10, considering
the circumstances under which the admission was made. In
construing an admission, the court should consider the purpose
for which the admission is used and the surrounding
circumstances and statements. Respondents have constantly
insisted that, in making the admission, they relied in good faith
on the veracity of the Order which was presented by petitioners.
Same; New Trial; The Rules allows the courts to grant a new
trial when there are errors of law or irregularities prejudicial to
the substantial rights of the accused committed during the trial, or
when there exists newly discovered evidence; Grant or denial of a

new trial is, generally speaking, addressed to the sound discretion
of the court
156
156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
which cannot be interfered with unless a clear abuse thereof is

shown.—We find that a new trial based on newly discovered
evidence is warranted. New trial is a remedy that seeks to
“temper the severity of a judgment or prevent the failure of
justice.” Thus, the Rules allows the courts to grant a new trial
when there are errors of law or irregularities prejudicial to the
substantial rights of the accused committed during the trial, or
when there exists newly discovered evidence. The grant or denial
of a new trial is, generally speaking, addressed to the sound
discretion of the court which cannot be interfered with unless a
clear abuse thereof is shown.
Same; Same; Requisites before a new trial may be granted on
the ground of newly discovered evidence.—This Court has
repeatedly held that before a new trial may be granted on the
ground of newly discovered evidence, it must be shown (1) that
the evidence was discovered after trial; (2) that such evidence
could not have been discovered and produced at the trial even
with the exercise of reasonable diligence; (3) that it is material,
not merely cumulative, corroborative, or impeaching; and (4) the
evidence is of such weight that it would probably change the
judgment if admitted. If the alleged newly discovered evidence
could have been very well presented during the trial with the
exercise of reasonable diligence, the same cannot be considered
newly discovered.
PETITION for review on certiorari of the resolutions of the

Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Ponce Enrile, Reyes & Manalastas for petitioners.
Soriano, Velez and Partners Law Offices for
respondents.
NACHURA, J.:
This petition for review on certiorari assails the Court of
Appeals (CA) Resolutions1 dated January 31, 2007 and
July
_______________
1 Penned by Associate Justice Agustin S. Dizon, with Associate Justices

Isaias P. Dicdican and Francisco P. Acosta, concurring; Rollo, pp. 40-47,
61.
167
VOL. 650, JUNE 1, 2011 167

16, 2007. The assailed Resolutions granted respondents’

motion for new trial of a case for quieting of title and
damages, decided in petitioners’ favor by the trial court in a
summary judgment.
The facts of the case are, as follows:
Estrella Mapa Vda. de Ybiernas (Estrella) owned a
parcel of land located in Talisay, Negros Occidental, and
covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-83976.
On April 28, 1988, Estrella executed a Deed of Absolute
Sale2 over the property in favor of her heirs, Dionisio
Ybiernas (Dionisio) and petitioners Manuel Ybiernas,
Vicente Ybiernas, and Maria Corazon Angeles.
On June 30, 1989, the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Branch 47, Bacolod City issued an Order in Cadastral Case
No. 10, LRC (G.L.R.O.) Rec. No. 97, Lot 713-C-B, Psd-
220027, Talisay Cadastre, directing the registration and
annotation of the Deed of Absolute Sale on the title. Thus,
on July 5, 1989, the Deed of Absolute Sale and the said
RTC Order were annotated on the title, as follows:
“Entry No. 334150; Order; Dionisio M. Ybiernas; Order issued

by the RTC of Negros Occ. to register and annotate the deed of
sale on this title without need of presenting the owner’s duplicate.
Date of order-June 30, 1989; Date of prescription-July 5, 1989 at
10:45 a.m.
Entry No. 334151; Sale; Dionisio Ybiernas, et al.; Deed of
absolute sale of this property for the sum of P650,000.00 in favor
of Dionisio Ybiernas, Vicente M. Ybiernas, Manuel M. Ybiernas
and Maria Corazon Y. Angeles in undivided equal share to each;
doc. no. 437, page 89, book VI, series of 1988 of the not. reg. of Mr.
Indalecio P. Arriola of Iloilo City. Date of instrument—April 28,
1988; Date of inscription-July 5, 1989 at 10:45 a.m.”3
_______________
2 Id., at pp. 65-66.

3 Id., at p. 71.
158

On October 29, 1991, respondents Ester Tanco-Gabaldon

and Manila Bay Spinning Mills, Inc. filed with the RTC of
Pasig City a Complaint4 for sum of money and damages,
amounting to P6,000,000.00, against Estrella and three
other individuals. The Complaint alleged that the
defendants were guilty of fraud when they misrepresented
to herein respondents that they own a parcel of land in
Quezon City, and that the title over the said property is
free from liens and encumbrances.
Upon respondents’ motion, the Pasig City RTC, in an
Order5 dated November 6, 1991, ordered the issuance of a
writ of preliminary attachment upon filing of a bond. The
sheriff issued the corresponding writ of attachment and
levied the subject property.6 On November 13, 1991, the
notice of attachment was annotated on TCT No. T-83976 as
Entry No. 346816.7
When Estrella’s heirs learned about the levy, Dionisio
filed, on January 14, 1992, an Affidavit of Third-Party
Claim, asserting the transfer of ownership to them.8
Respondents, however, filed an indemnity bond; thus, the
sheriff refused to lift the levy.
The Pasig City RTC resolved the Complaint for sum of
money in favor of respondents, and Estrella, et al. were
ordered to pay P6,000,000.00, plus legal interest and
damages. Respondents, however, elevated the case all the
way up to this Court, questioning the interest rate. This
Court eventually denied the appeal in a Minute Resolution
dated November 20, 2002, which became final and
executory on April 14, 2003.9
_______________
4 Id., at pp. 165-176.

5 Id., at p. 231.
6 Id., at p. 232.
7 Id., at p. 70.
8 Id., at p. 279.
9 Id., at pp. 260.
159
VOL. 650, JUNE 1, 2011 159

In the meantime, Dionisio died and was succeeded by

his heirs, petitioners Valentin Ybiernas and Violeta
Ybiernas.
On November 28, 2001, petitioners filed with the RTC of
Bacolod City a Complaint for Quieting of Title and
Damages,10 claiming that the levy was invalid because the
property is not owned by any of the defendants in the Pasig
City RTC case. They averred that the annotation of the
RTC Order and the Deed of Absolute Sale on TCT No. T-
83976 serves as notice to the whole world that the property
is no longer owned by Estrella.
In their Answer with Counterclaims,11 respondents
contended that (a) the case constituted an interference in
the proceeding of the Pasig City RTC, a co-equal court; (b)
petitioners should have filed their claims against the
indemnity bond filed by respondents; and (c) petitioners
were guilty of forum-shopping, considering that the case
actually sought a relief similar to the third-party claim.
During pre-trial, the parties admitted, among others,
the “[e]xistence of the Order dated June 30, 1989 by RTC
Branch 47, Bacolod City, in Cad. Case No. 10 concerning
the same TCT No. T-83976.”12
On July 30, 2004, petitioners filed a motion for summary
judgment. The RTC initially denied the motion in the
Order dated December 23, 2004.13 Upon petitioners’ motion
for reconsideration, the RTC granted the motion for
summary judgment in the decision14 dated December 27,
2005. The RTC made the following pronouncement:
“A consideration of the issues defined by the parties during the

pre-trial x x x shows quite clearly that they are issues that may
_______________
10 Id., at pp. 270-277.

11 Id., at pp. 289-294.
12 Id., at p. 73.
13 Id., at p. 295.
14 Id., at pp. 295-307.
160

already be properly resolved now at this stage of the

proceedings in this case, as they, other than the amount of
damages, are quite apparently pure questions of law, the factual
antecedents for these issues having already been admitted by the

parties.
As to issue No. 1 [whether ownership has been transferred to
petitioners], it is a fact well-established, as admitted by the
parties and shown by the annotation as Entry No. 334151 on said
TCT No. T-8[39]76, that the said Deed of Absolute Sale, dated
April 28, 1988 over the subject property by Estrella Mapa Vda. de
Ybiernas in favor of Dionisio Ybiernas, Vicente Ybiernas, Manuel
Ybiernas and Maria Corazon Y. Angeles, was validly annotated as
such Entry No. 334151, inscribed on July 5, 1989, on said TCT
No. T-83976 registered in the name of Estrella M. Ybiernas.
Neither the defendants nor anyone else has challenged the
validity of the judicial proceedings before RTC, Branch 47,
Bacolod City, which issued in Cadastral Case No. 10, the said
Order dated June 30, 1989, which directed the registration and
annotation of the said Deed of Absolute Sale dated April 28, 1988
on said TCT No. T-83976, and which led to the annotation under
said Entry No. 334151 on said TCT No. T-83976.”15
Thus, the dispositive portion of the December 27, 2005

RTC decision reads:
“WHEREFORE, except as to the amount of damages, a summary

judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the
defendants, and as prayed for by the plaintiffs in their complaint:
1. The levy on attachment made by herein defendant Sheriff of RTC,
Branch 163, Pasig City on said TCT No. T-83976, issued by the
Registrar of Deeds of the Province of Negros Occidental, covering
the Subject Property, is hereby DECLARED INVALID; and,
consequently,
2. Entry No. 346816 on the same TCT No. T-83976 is hereby
CANCELLED and DISSOLVED.
SO ORDERED.”16
_______________
15 Id., at pp. 301-302.

16 Id., at p. 307.
161
VOL. 650, JUNE 1, 2011 161

Respondents filed a notice of appeal,17 and it was

granted by the RTC.
While the appeal was pending in the CA, respondents
filed a motion for new trial,18 claiming that they have
discovered on May 9, 2006 that Cadastral Case No. 10 did

not exist and the April 28, 1988 Deed of Sale was
simulated. Attached to the motion were the affidavit19 of
Atty. Gerely C. Rico, who conducted the research in
Bacolod City in behalf of the law office representing
respondents, and the following certifications:
a. Certification dated 09 May 2006 issued by Ildefonso M.

Villanueva, Jr., Clerk of Court VI of the RTC of Bacolod City,
stating that: “no cadastral case involving Lot 713-C-1-B, Psd-
220027, Talisay Cadastre, was filed with this office sometime on
30 June 1989 and raffled to Branch 47 of this court which was
then presided by Judge Enrique T. Jocson.”20
b. Certification dated 09 May 2006 issued by Atty. Mehafee G.
Sideno, Clerk of Court V of the RTC of Bacolod City, Branch 47,
stating that: “as per records of this court, no Cadastral Case No.
10, LRC, GLRO Rec. 97, Lot No. 713-C-1-B, Psd 220027, filed by
Dionisio Ybiernas was filed and docketed in this office.”21
c. Certification dated 11 July 2006 issued by Estrella M. Domingo,
OIC Archives Division of the National Archives Office, stating
that: “no copy is on file with this Office of a DEED OF SALE
allegedly executed by and among ESTRELLA MAPA VDA. DE
YBIERNAS, DIONISIO YBIERNAS, VICENTE M. YBIERNAS,
JR., MANUEL YBIERNAS and MARIA CORAZON ANGELES,
ratified on April 28, 1988 before INDALECIO P. ARRIOLA, a
notary public for and within Iloilo City and acknowledged
_______________
17 Id., at p. 308.
18 Id., at pp. 315-339.
19 Id., at pp. 310-311.
20 Id., at p. 312.
21 Id., at p. 313.
162

as Doc. No. 437; Page No. 89; Book No. VI; Series of
1988.”22
Respondents argued that they have satisfied all the

requisites for the grant of a new trial based on newly
discovered evidence: (1) they discovered the evidence after
the trial court rendered its judgment on December 27,
2005; (2) they could not have discovered and produced the
evidence during the trial with reasonable diligence; and (3)

the evidence was material, not merely cumulative,
corroborative, or impeaching, and was of such weight that,
if admitted, would probably change the judgment. On the
second requisite, respondents explained that they could not
have discovered the evidence with reasonable diligence
because they relied in good faith on the veracity of the RTC
Order dated June 30, 1989, based on the principle that the
issuance of a court order, as an act of a public officer,
enjoys the presumption of regularity. On the third
requisite, respondents pointed out that, if the nonexistence
of Cadastral Case No. 10 and the invalidity of the Order
dated June 30, 1989 were allowed to be proven by the
newly discovered evidence, the action for quieting of title
would probably be dismissed, as respondents’ levy would be
declared superior to petitioners’ claim.23
In their Comment/Opposition, petitioners argued that
(a) the questioned decision was a partial summary
judgment which could not be the subject of a motion for
new trial; (b) the existence of Cadastral Case No. 10 was an
admitted fact which could not be questioned in a motion for
new trial; and (c) there was no newly discovered evidence
that would warrant a new trial.24
The CA did not agree with petitioners. Hence, on
January 31, 2007, it granted respondents’ motion for new
trial, thus:
_______________
22 Id., at p. 314.
23 Id., at pp. 321-325.
24 Id., at pp. 358-365.
163
VOL. 650, JUNE 1, 2011 163

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the defendants-

appellants having satisfied all the elements necessary to justify
the filing of a Motion for New Trial which appears to be
meritorious and in the higher interest of substantial justice, the
said motion is GRANTED. ACCORDINGLY, let a new trial of the
Quieting of Title case be held and let said case be REMANDED to
the Court a quo for said purpose.
SO ORDERED.”25
At the outset, the CA noted that the RTC summary

judgment was a proper subject of an appeal because it was
a final adjudication on the merits of the case, having
completely disposed of all the issues except as to the
amount of damages. The CA concluded that respondents
properly availed of a motion for new trial because such
remedy could be availed of at any time after the appeal
from the lower court had been perfected and before the CA
loses jurisdiction over the case. According to the CA,
respondents were able to show that they obtained the new
evidence only after the trial of the case and after the
summary judgment had been rendered. The CA also held
that respondents never admitted during the pre-trial the
existence of Cadastral Case No. 10; they only admitted the
existence of the Order dated June 30, 1989 in Cadastral
Case No. 10.
On July 16, 2007, the CA denied petitioners’ motion for
reconsideration.26
Petitioners subsequently filed this petition for review on
certiorari, raising the following issues:
A.
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY
ERRED IN RULING THAT THE QUESTIONED DECISION OF
THE RTC IS A PROPER SUBJECT OF AN APPEAL AND A MO-
_______________
25 Id., at p. 47.
26 Supra note 1.
164

TION FOR NEW TRIAL UNDER RULE 53 OF THE RULES OF

COURT.
B.
ERRED IN FAILING TO RULE THAT A MOTION FOR NEW
TRIAL IS AN IMPROPER REMEDY TO QUESTION ADMITTED
FACTS.
C.
ERRED IN FAILING TO RULE THAT NO NEWLY
DISCOVERED EVIDENCE WAS ADDUCED TO WARRANT A
NEW TRIAL.27
Petitioners posit that no appeal could be taken from the

trial court’s decision because it did not completely dispose
of all the issues in the case; it failed to settle the issue on
damages. Petitioners categorize the decision as a partial
summary judgment, which in Guevarra, et al. v. Hon. Court
of Appeals, et al.,28 reiterated in GSIS v. Philippine Village
Hotel, Inc.,29 the Court pronounced as not a final and an
appealable judgment, hence, interlocutory and clearly an
improper subject of an appeal. Petitioners theorize then
that the appeal could not have been perfected and the CA
could not have acquired jurisdiction over the case,
including the motion for new trial. Accordingly, they
conclude that the motion for new trial should have been
denied outright for being violative of Section 1,30 Rule 53 of
the Rules of Court, which provides that the
_______________
27 Rollo, pp. 452-453.

28 209 Phil. 241; 124 SCRA 297 (1983).
29 482 Phil. 47; 438 SCRA 567 (2004).
30 Section 1. Period for filing; ground.—At any time after the appeal
from the lower court has been perfected and before the Court of Appeals
loses jurisdiction over the case, a party may file a motion for new trial on
the ground of newly discovered evidence which could not have been
discovered prior to the trial in the court below by the exercise of due
diligence and which is of such character as would probably change the
result. The motion shall be accompanied by
165
VOL. 650, JUNE 1, 2011 165

motion for new trial may be filed after the appeal has been
perfected. Petitioners argue that, pursuant to Section 4,
Rule 35 of the Rules of Court, trial should proceed instead
to settle the issue on damages. Petitioners point out that
the case cited by the CA in its Decision, Bell Carpets
International Trading Corporation v. Court of Appeals,31 is
not applicable to the case because, unlike in the present
case, the trial court’s ruling completely disposed of all the
issues in that case.
In addition, petitioners insist that respondents already
admitted the existence of Cadastral Case No. 10 by its
admission of the existence of the Order dated June 30,
1989. They maintain that respondents cannot admit the
existence of an order and yet deny the existence of the
proceedings from which the order emanates. Respondents’

judicial admission that the court Order existed necessarily
carried with it the admission that the cadastral
proceedings where the Order was issued likewise existed.
Petitioners aver that respondents are bound by their
judicial admission and they cannot be allowed to present
evidence to contradict the same.
Petitioners next argue that the purported newly
discovered pieces of evidence have no probative value.
Petitioners say that the certifications are self-serving and
inconclusive opinions of court employees, who did not even
indicate the period when they occupied their positions and
state whether they had the authority to issue such
certifications and whether they had personal knowledge of
the documents archived during the year that the deed of
sale was executed. According to petitioners, the
certifications cannot overcome the presumption of
regularity in the issuance of the Order dated June 30,
1989. At most, the certifications would simply show that
the records of Cadastral Case No. 10 could no longer be
found in
_______________
affidavits showing the facts constituting the grounds therefor and the
newly discovered evidence.
31 G.R. No. 75315, May 7, 1990, 185 SCRA 35.
166

the records; hence, they would have no bearing on the

result of the case.
Petitioners also emphasize that respondents failed to
meet the burden of proving that the newly discovered
pieces of evidence presented comply with the requisites to
justify the holding of a new trial. They contend that
respondents could have discovered and presented in court
the certifications during trial had they exercised
reasonable diligence.
Petitioners’ arguments are untenable.
The issue of whether the RTC judgment is a final
judgment is indeed crucial. If the judgment were not final,
it would be an improper subject of an appeal. Hence, no
appeal would have been perfected before the CA, and the
latter would not have acquired jurisdiction over the entire

case, including the motion for new trial. But more
importantly, only a final judgment or order, as opposed to
an interlocutory order, may be the subject of a motion for
new trial.
A final judgment or order is one that finally disposes of a
case, leaving nothing more for the court to do in respect
thereto, such as an adjudication on the merits which, on
the basis of the evidence presented at the trial, declares
categorically what the rights and obligations of the parties
are and which party is in the right, or a judgment or order
that dismisses an action on the ground of res judicata or
prescription, for instance.32 Just like any other judgment, a
summary judgment that satisfies the requirements of a
final judgment will be considered as such.
A summary judgment is granted to settle expeditiously a
case if, on motion of either party, there appears from the
pleadings, depositions, admissions, and affidavits that no
important issues of fact are involved, except the amount of
_______________
32 Intramuros Tennis Club, Inc. v. Philippine Tourism Authority, 395

Phil. 278, 293; 341 SCRA 90, 104-105 (2000).
167
VOL. 650, JUNE 1, 2011 167

damages.33 The RTC judgment in this case fully

determined the rights and obligations of the parties
relative to the case for quieting of title and left no other
issue unresolved, except the amount of damages. Hence, it
is a final judgment.
In leaving out the determination of the amount of
damages, the RTC did not remove its summary judgment
from the category of final judgments. In fact, under Section
3,34 Rule 35 of the Rules of Court, a summary judgment
may not be rendered on the amount of damages, although
such judgment may be rendered on the issue of the right to
damages.35
In Jugador v. De Vera,36 the Court distinguished
between the determination of the amount of damages and
the issue of the right to damages itself in case of a
summary judgment. The Court elucidated on this point,
thus:
[A] summary judgment may be rendered except as to the

amount of damages. In other words, such judgment may be
entered on the issue relating to the existence of the right to
damages. Chief Justice Moran pertinently observes that “if there
is any real issue as to the amount of damages, the c[o]urt, after
rendering summary judgment, may proceed to assess the amount
recoverable.”37
_______________
33 Cotabato Timberland Co., Inc. v. C. Alcantara and Sons, Inc., G.R.

No. 145469, May 28, 2004, 430 SCRA 227, 233.
34 Section 3. Motion and proceedings thereon.—The motion shall be
served at least ten (10) days before the time specified for the hearing. The
adverse party may serve opposing affidavits, depositions, or admissions at
least three (3) days before the hearing. After the hearing, the judgment
sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, supporting affidavits,
depositions, and admissions on file, show that, except as to the amount of
damages, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the
moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.
35 FLORENZ D. REGALADO, I REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM, 368 (Eighth
Revised Edition 2002).
36 94 Phil. 704 (1954).
37 Id., at p. 710.
168

It is therefore reasonable to distinguish the present case

from GSIS v. Philippine Village Hotel, Inc.38 In that case,
the summary judgment specifically stated that “[t]rial on
the issu[e] of damages shall resume.” Evidently, there
remained an unresolved issue on the right to damages.
Here, the trial court, in stating that “except as to the
amount of damages, a summary judgment is hereby
rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the
defendants,” had, in effect, resolved all issues, including
the right to damages in favor of the plaintiffs (petitioners).
What remained undetermined was only the amount of
damages.
On the issue of whether respondents are proscribed from
presenting evidence that would disprove the existence of
Cadastral Case No. 10, we likewise sustain the CA.
A judicial admission is an admission, verbal or written,
made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the
same case, which dispenses with the need for proof with
respect to the matter or fact admitted. It may be

contradicted only by a showing that it was made through
palpable mistake or that no such admission was made.39
During the pre-trial, respondents categorically admitted
the existence of the Order dated June 30, 1989 only. The
Court cannot extend such admission to the existence of
Cadastral Case No. 10, considering the circumstances
under which the admission was made. In construing an
admission, the court should consider the purpose for which
the admission is used and the surrounding circumstances
and statements.40 Respondents have constantly insisted
that, in making the admission, they relied in good faith on
the veracity of the Order which was presented by
petitioners. Moreover, they
_______________
38 Supra note 29.

39 Camitan v. Fidelity Investment Corporation, G.R. No. 163684, April
16, 2008, 551 SCRA 540, 549.
40 Harmon v. Christy Lumber, Inc., 402 NW2D 690 (1987); see Moffett
v. Arabian American Oil Co., Inc., 85 F. Supp. 174 (1949).
169
VOL. 650, JUNE 1, 2011 169

relied on the presumption that the Order has been

issued by Judge Enrique T. Jocson in the regular
performance of his duties. It would therefore be prejudicial
and unfair to respondents if they would be prevented from
proving that the Order is in fact spurious by showing that
there was no Cadastral Case No. 10 before the RTC,
Branch 47, of Bacolod City.
Finally, we find that a new trial based on newly
discovered evidence is warranted. New trial is a remedy
that seeks to “temper the severity of a judgment or prevent
the failure of justice.” Thus, the Rules allows the courts to
grant a new trial when there are errors of law or
irregularities prejudicial to the substantial rights of the
accused committed during the trial, or when there exists
newly discovered evidence.41 The grant or denial of a new
trial is, generally speaking, addressed to the sound
discretion of the court which cannot be interfered with
unless a clear abuse thereof is shown.42
This Court has repeatedly held that before a new trial
may be granted on the ground of newly discovered
evidence, it must be shown (1) that the evidence was

discovered after trial; (2) that such evidence could not have
been discovered and produced at the trial even with the
exercise of reasonable diligence; (3) that it is material, not
merely cumulative, corroborative, or impeaching; and (4)
the evidence is of such weight that it would probably
change the judgment if admitted. If the alleged newly
discovered evidence could have been very well presented
during the trial with the exercise of reasonable diligence,
the same cannot be considered newly discovered.43
_______________
41 Brig. Gen. Custodio v. Sandiganbayan, 493 Phil. 194, 203-204; 453

SCRA 24, 32 (2005).
42 Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company v. Commissioner of
Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 157264, January 31, 2008, 543 SCRA 329, 340.
43 Custodio v. Sandiganbayan, supra at pp. 204-205; p. 33.
170

The only contentious element in the case is whether the

evidence could have been discovered with the exercise of
reasonable diligence. In Custodio v. Sandiganbayan,44 the
Court expounded on the due diligence requirement, thus:
“The threshold question in resolving a motion for new trial

based on newly discovered evidence is whether the [proffered]
evidence is in fact a “newly discovered evidence which could not
have been discovered by due diligence.” The question of whether
evidence is newly discovered has two aspects: a temporal one, i.e.,
when was the evidence discovered, and a predictive one, i.e., when
should or could it have been discovered. It is to the latter that the
requirement of due diligence has relevance. We have held that in
order that a particular piece of evidence may be properly regarded
as newly discovered to justify new trial, what is essential is not so
much the time when the evidence offered first sprang into
existence nor the time when it first came to the knowledge of the
party now submitting it; what is essential is that the offering
party had exercised reasonable diligence in seeking to locate such
evidence before or during trial but had nonetheless failed to
secure it.
The Rules do not give an exact definition of due diligence, and
whether the movant has exercised due diligence depends upon the
particular circumstances of each case. Nonetheless, it has been
observed that the phrase is often equated with “reasonable

promptness to avoid prejudice to the defendant.” In other words,
the concept of due diligence has both a time component and a good
faith component. The movant for a new trial must not only act in
a timely fashion in gathering evidence in support of the motion;
he must act reasonably and in good faith as well. Due diligence
contemplates that the defendant acts reasonably and in good faith
to obtain the evidence, in light of the totality of the circumstances
and the facts known to him.”45
As previously stated, respondents relied in good faith on

the veracity of the Order dated June 30, 1989 which
petitioners presented in court. It was only practical for
them to do so,
_______________
44 Id.
45 Id., at p. 206; p. 34-35.
171
VOL. 650, JUNE 1, 2011 171

if only to expedite the proceedings. Given this

circumstance, we hold that respondents exercised
reasonable diligence in obtaining the evidence. The
certifications therefore qualify as newly discovered
evidence.
The question of whether the certifications presented by
respondents have any probative value is left to the
judgment and discretion of the trial court which will be
hearing the case anew.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is
DENIED. The Court of Appeals Resolutions dated January
31, 2007 and July 16, 2007 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio (Chairperson), Peralta, Abad and Mendoza, JJ.,

concur.
Petition denied, resolutions affirmed.
Note.—In summary judgments, the trial court can

determine a genuine issue on the basis of the pleadings,
admissions, documents, affidavits or counter affidavits
submitted by the parties. (Bitanga vs. Pyramid
Construction Engineering Corporation, 563 SCRA 544

[2008])
——o0o——
© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

6 Ybiernas v. Tanco-Gabaldon

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

6 Ybiernas v. Tanco-Gabaldon

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

6 Ybiernas v. Tanco-Gabaldon

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

5/24/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 650

G.R. No. 178925. June 1, 2011.*

MANUEL YBIERNAS, VICENTE YBIERNAS, MARIA

Remedial Law; New Trial; Only a final judgment or order, as

VOL. 650, JUNE 1, 2011 155

Ybiernas vs. Tanco-Gabaldon

except the amount of damages. The RTC judgment in this case

when there exists newly discovered evidence; Grant or denial of a

156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ybiernas vs. Tanco-Gabaldon

which cannot be interfered with unless a clear abuse thereof is

PETITION for review on certiorari of the resolutions of the

1 Penned by Associate Justice Agustin S. Dizon, with Associate Justices

VOL. 650, JUNE 1, 2011 167

16, 2007. The assailed Resolutions granted respondents’

“Entry No. 334150; Order; Dionisio M. Ybiernas; Order issued

2 Id., at pp. 65-66.

158 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

On October 29, 1991, respondents Ester Tanco-Gabaldon

4 Id., at pp. 165-176.

VOL. 650, JUNE 1, 2011 159

In the meantime, Dionisio died and was succeeded by

“A consideration of the issues defined by the parties during the

10 Id., at pp. 270-277.

160 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

already be properly resolved now at this stage of the

antecedents for these issues having already been admitted by the

Thus, the dispositive portion of the December 27, 2005

“WHEREFORE, except as to the amount of damages, a summary

15 Id., at pp. 301-302.

VOL. 650, JUNE 1, 2011 161

Respondents filed a notice of appeal,17 and it was

discovered on May 9, 2006 that Cadastral Case No. 10 did

a. Certification dated 09 May 2006 issued by Ildefonso M.

162 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Respondents argued that they have satisfied all the

evidence during the trial with reasonable diligence; and (3)

VOL. 650, JUNE 1, 2011 163

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the defendants-

At the outset, the CA noted that the RTC summary

164 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

TION FOR NEW TRIAL UNDER RULE 53 OF THE RULES OF

Petitioners posit that no appeal could be taken from the

27 Rollo, pp. 452-453.

VOL. 650, JUNE 1, 2011 165

proceedings from which the order emanates. Respondents’

31 G.R. No. 75315, May 7, 1990, 185 SCRA 35.

166 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

the records; hence, they would have no bearing on the

latter would not have acquired jurisdiction over the entire

32 Intramuros Tennis Club, Inc. v. Philippine Tourism Authority, 395

VOL. 650, JUNE 1, 2011 167

damages.33 The RTC judgment in this case fully

[A] summary judgment may be rendered except as to the

33 Cotabato Timberland Co., Inc. v. C. Alcantara and Sons, Inc., G.R.

168 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

It is therefore reasonable to distinguish the present case

respect to the matter or fact admitted. It may be

38 Supra note 29.