TOPIC: RULE 37 NEW TRIAL OR submitting it; what is essential is that the

RECONSIDERATION offering party had exercised reasonable

diligence in seeking to locate such
EDUARDO R. DEE vs. ALBA, evidence before or during trial but had
HORTENCIANA, ARCILLA nonetheless failed to secure it. ETHI
TERESITA/MARIANO ARINO JOSE, BENITO
BAGASPOSRO, FELICIANA BALARES,
PEDRO BALBUENA, ET AL., FACTS:
G.R. No. 181535 | August 17, 2016 | A multitude of 520 persons filed a
Complaint for Quieting of Title, Recovery of
Digested by: Laminato, Charles D. Ownership and Possession with Damages with
the RTC, Camarines Sur, against Eduardo Dee
DOCTRINE: Section 1 of Rule 37, Rules of (herein defendant-appellant).
Court, allows a party to le a motion for new trial Said persons alleged that they were
provided the following requirements are present, purchasers-owners of burial lots in Divine Heart
namely: (1) that the evidence was discovered Memorial Park in Anayan, Pili, Camarines Sur.
after trial; (2) that such evidence could not have Although 520 persons were named in the
been discovered and produced at the trial even caption of the complaint, plaintiffs-appellees only
with the exercise of reasonable diligence; (3) listed 229 owners of "family type" lots, 118
that such evidence is material, not merely owners of "kennedy type" lots, 67 owners of
cumulative, corroborative, or impeaching; and "lawn type" lots and 76 "mausoleum type" lots,
(4) that such evidence, if admitted, would or a total of 490 lot owners. (It appears that
probably change the judgment. The absence of some of the names listed are ghost buyers)
any of the requirements forbids the court from Petitioner Eduardo Dee testified that he
allowing the evidence sought to be introduced to acquired the subject property where the Divine
be admitted in evidence. Clearly, if the allegedly Heart Memorial Park is a part, through public
newly discovered evidence could have been auction where he was the highest bidder; that a
presented during the trial with the exercise of receiver was appointed by the court to receive
reasonable diligence, the same cannot be the payments of the various buyers of memorial
considered newly discovered. lots and to issue receipts therefor; and that there
were talks toward a compromise agreement
In Custodio v. Sandiganbayan, the Court has set between Eduardo Dee and Conrado Colarina
the requirement for due diligence that bears on but the same did not push through due to
the propriety of the motion for new trial based on Colarina's surreptitious sales and production
newly- discovered evidence, thus: of titles. the ling of the case nor was she
The threshold question in informed that lot buyers of the memorial park
resolving a motion for new trial based on were filing cases against defendant-appellant.
newly discovered evidence is whether RTC declared as legitimate and genuine
the proffered evidence is in fact a newly memorial lot owners the 206 persons listed in
discovered evidence which could not the petitioner's answer to request for admission.
have been discovered by due diligence. Moreover, the RTC considered as genuine and
The question of whether evidence is legitimate claimants the 75 persons listed in
newly discovered has two aspects: a Exhibit 5 as "active/paying," as well as the 137
temporal one, i.e., when was the persons listed as "with interment (fully paid and
evidence discovered, and a predictive not fully paid),
one, i.e., when should or could it have Eduardo Dee filed his motion for partial
been discovered. It is to the latter that reconsideration, stating that the RTC erred in
the requirement of due diligence has ruling in favor of the 95 plaintiffs whose claims
relevance. We have held that in order were ruled to be genuine and valid. In support of
that a particular piece of evidence may his motion, he presented the approved plan of
be properly regarded as newly the Divine Heart Memorial Park that indicated
discovered to justify new trial, what is that the lots of the majority of such 95 plaintiffs
essential is not so much the time when were located either in the non-burial areas of the
the evidence offered rst sprang into park, or in non-existing blocks; and contended
existence nor the time when it rst came that although some of the 95 plaintiffs had valid
to the knowledge of the party now claims to certain lots, their respective contracts
had already been cancelled. Rules of Court, allows a party to le a motion for
The CA pointed out that the plan could new trial provided the following requirements are
not be admitted because it had not been
present, namely: (1) that the evidence was
formally offered in evidence as required by
Section 34, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court; and discovered after trial; (2) that such evidence
that the plan constituted forgotten evidence that could not have been discovered and produced
could not be considered by the trial court in at the trial even with the exercise of reasonable
deciding the case.
diligence; (3) that such evidence is material, not
The petitioner argues that the plan was
not forgotten but newly discovered evidence that merely cumulative, corroborative, or impeaching;
should be admitted; that the Court should relax and (4) that such evidence, if admitted, would
the rules of procedure and admit the plan probably change the judgment. The absence of
despite the fact that the same had not been
any of the requirements forbids the court from
formally offered in evidence; and that the Court
should review the factual ndings of the lower allowing the evidence sought to be introduced to
courts inasmuch as they had grossly erred in be admitted in evidence. Clearly, if the allegedly
passing upon the claims of the respondents, newly discovered evidence could have been
especially those of the 95 respondents.
presented during the trial with the exercise of
Hence, this appeal. reasonable diligence, the same cannot be
considered newly discovered.
ISSUE:
The issue presented for consideration is whether In Custodio v. Sandiganbayan, the Court has set
or not the plan of the Divine Heart Memorial the requirement for due diligence that bears on
Park was admissible in evidence. NO the propriety of the motion for new trial based on
newly- discovered evidence, thus:
HELD: The threshold question in
Court DENIES the petition for review on resolving a motion for new trial based on
certiorari newly discovered evidence is whether
the proffered evidence is in fact a newly
The CA was correct in not considering the plan discovered evidence which could not
of the Divine Heart Memorial Park as evidence. have been discovered by due diligence.
The question of whether evidence is
First of all, the petitioner hereby newly discovered has two aspects: a
presents a factual issue in urging the review of temporal one, i.e., when was the
the records in order for the Court to reconsider evidence discovered, and a predictive
the unanimous findings of the CA and the RTC one, i.e., when should or could it have
and instead hold that the defendants, been discovered. It is to the latter that
respondents herein, were not legitimate buyers the requirement of due diligence has
and owners of the memorial lots found in the relevance. We have held that in order
Divine Heart Memorial Park. However, such that a particular piece of evidence may
imposition cannot be accepted because this be properly regarded as newly
Court is not a trier of facts. In this appeal under discovered to justify new trial, what is
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, the Court is essential is not so much the time when
limited to reviewing only questions of law. We the evidence offered rst sprang into
further remind that as a general rule the factual existence nor the time when it rst came
findings of the trial court, especially when to the knowledge of the party now
affirmed by the CA, are binding on this Court. submitting it; what is essential is that the
Although the Court has recognized certain offering party had exercised reasonable
exceptions to the operation of this rule, the diligence in seeking to locate such
petitioner has not sufficiently shown why and evidence before or during trial but had
how this case should be treated as exceptional. nonetheless failed to secure it. ETHI

Secondly, the plan is not newly- The Rules do not give an exact definition of due
discovered evidence. Section 1 of Rule 37, diligence, and whether the movant has
exercised due diligence depends upon the
particular circumstances of each case. correctly held that the plan was not newly-
Nonetheless, it has been observed that the discovered but forgotten evidence. The main
phrase is often equated with reasonable consideration was that the petitioner could have
promptness to avoid prejudice to the defendant. presented the plan during the trial had it
In other words, the concept of due diligence has exercised due diligence.
both a time component and a good faith
component. The movant for a new trial must not Lastly, the Court cannot simply relax the
only act in a timely fashion in gathering evidence rules of procedure and allow the presentation of
in support of the motion; he must act reasonably forgotten evidence notwithstanding that the
and in good faith as well. Due diligence petitioner now insists that doing so will serve the
contemplates that the defendant acts reasonably highest interest of justice. Although litigation is
and in good faith to obtain the evidence, in light not a game of technicalities in which the better
of the totality of the circumstances and the facts tactician wins, we should stress that the rules of
known to him. procedure have a role to play in insuring that
The CA stated: litigations are conducted in a just, speedy and
We are not convinced orderly fashion. As such, the petitioner's plea
that the map or the plan was not that the relaxation of the rules will best serve the
discovered or available during highest interest of justice is disregarded
trial. Defendant-appellant's because of his lack of persuasive demonstration
allegation that his agents were that his failure to present the plan during trial
not in complete control of the was not because of his neglect. The Court is
records of the cemetery which wary of pleas for the liberalization of the rules
prevented him from discovering and may only consider the same upon a clear
the map or plan earlier, is and convincing showing by the petitioner of his
specious. This hardly incites observance of due diligence, which did not
belief in light of the fact that happen in this case. Indeed, such liberalization
the action below was in the construction and application of the rules of
instituted in 1995 while procedure should not be made subordinate to
defendant-appellant acquired the gross mistakes and inexcusable negligence
the subject cemetery five of the litigant and his counsel; otherwise, the
years earlier, in 1990. As the rules of procedure, albeit intended to ensure the
new owner thereof, speedy, inexpensive and smooth administration
defendant-appellant was of justice, would be easily reduced to a mockery.
expected to ask for or to
secure such basic document
as a map or plan of the entire COURT DENIES THE PETITION FOR REVIEW
lot. A person of ordinary ON CERTIORARI; AFFIRMS THE DECISION
prudence and concern would PROMULGATED ON AUGUST 30, 2007; AND
have wanted to see for ORDERS THE PETITIONER TO PAY THE
himself the extent and COSTS OF SUIT.
boundaries of what he is
acquiring. Thus, a person is
presumed to take ordinary DETAC
care of his concerns. With
ordinary diligence, the said
map or plan would have been
available long before the
Complaint was led in court.
Thus, the failure of the
defendant-appellant to
present what he calls a 'vital
document' during the trial is
inexcusable. (bold
underscoring supplied for
emphasis)
As the foregoing bears out, the CA