You are on page 1of 2


CONCHITA FRANCIA  On Aug 18, 1995, the RTC held: petitioners had encroached on
FACTS: respondents lot by17sqm
 Francia is the registered owner of a residential lot in Sampaloc, Manila  Petitioners filed w/ RTC a motion for new trial on the ground of newly
o area of 1,000 sqm and covered by TCT 180199. discovered evidence:
o Located beside said lot is a parcel of land owned by Guillermo o TCT covering respondents lot referred to another lot owned by
and Lourdes Bernaldez, Nolasco and Editha Tupaz.
 w/ area of 114 sqm and covered by TCT 157000 o RTC denied the motion for lack of merit.
 On Oct 8, 1988, the building and other improvements erected on  Petitioners appealed w/ CA.
respondents lot were destroyed by fire.  On Jan 19, 2000, CA: affirmed in toto RTC.
 Subsequently, petitioners built their kitchen and encroached upon a o factual findings of RTC were supported by the evidence
portion of respondents lot. presented before it.
 Respondent had her property resurveyed by a geodetic engineer: o RTC did not err in denying the motion for new trial, since
petitioners had encroached upon 19 sqm of her lot petitioners had not satisfactorily shown that they exercised
 Respondent made several demands upon petitioners to vacate the reasonable diligence in producing or locating a copy of TCT
portion of her lot they were occupying, but petitioners did not comply 180189 in the name of Nolasco and Editha Tupaz before or
 Respondent filed w/ RTC Manila a complaint praying that the court during trial but had nonetheless failed to secure it.
determine the rightful owner of the area in dispute.  Petitioners moved for reconsideration
 RTC: ordered a resurvey of the lots of respondent and petitioners.  CA denied MR on June 28, 2000
 Respondent nominated Engr. Honorio Santamaria as surveyor of her lot,  Hence, this petition for review on certiorari
while petitioners chose Engr. Rosario Mercado as their surveyor.  PETITIONERS’ ARGUMENTS
 In the course of the trial, Santamaria reported that petitioners had o CA erred in upholding RTC’s reliance on the survey made by
encroached upon respondents lot by an area of 19sqm. Engr. De Lara despite the fact that said survey has not been
o Santamarias survey plan was duly approved by Bureau of Lands. verified and approved by the Bureau of Lands, and is therefore
 Mercados report did not contain a similar finding. His plan was still nothing but a private writing.
pending approval by the Bureau of Lands o there is no preponderance of evidence to deprive them of the 17
 While the trial court was able to establish a common boundary of both sqm which, according to RTC&CA formed part of Francia’s lot.
lots from the reports filed by Santamaria and Mercado, it still could not  RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS
conclusively determine who owned the disputed area. o CA did not err in affirming RTC since the evidence supports the
 On Sep 10, 1990, RTC issued an order calling for another resurvey of the factual findings of the RTC.
two lots and directing the Director of the Bureau of Lands to appoint a o RTC considered not only the report of Engr. De Lara, but all the
competent geodetic engineer to undertake the resurvey in the presence evidence presented before it in resolving the ownership of the
of representatives of the RTC and of the parties. area in dispute.
o A survey team under Engr. Elpidio de Lara, Chief of the Technical o petitioners failed to present evidence to controvert De Laras
Services Division of the Land Management Services (NCR) of the report, despite having been given the chance by RTC to have the
DENR resurveyed the properties properties resurveyed again after De Lara presented his report.
o Engr. De Lara submitted a survey report w/ verification plan: ISSUES: 1. W/N findings of fact of CA are supported by the records. YES
petitioners had encroached upon 17sqm of respondents lot 2. W/N motion for new trial was correctly denied. YES (impt issue)
1. There is no merit in the petition. o (c) by a subscribing witness.
 The issues raised by petitioners are issues of fact which are not o It must be emphasized that as found by CA, RTC did not rely
reviewable by this Court in a petition for review on certiorari. Section 1, merely on De Laras findings in resolving the case; it also
Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure: considered all other evidence presented by the parties.
 Filing of petition with the Supreme Court. A party desiring to appeal by
certiorari from a judgment or final order or resolution of the Court of 2. The Court, likewise, sustains the findings of CA that petitioners motion
Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court or other courts for new trial was correctly denied by RTC
whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme Court a verified  We have previously ruled that a motion for new trial on the ground of
petition for review on certiorari. The petition shall raise only questions newly discovered evidence shall be granted when the concurrence of the
of law which must be distinctly set forth. following requisites is established:
 In a petition for review on certiorari, SC is limited to reviewing errors of o (a) the evidence is discovered after trial;
law absent any showing that the findings of fact of CA are not supported o (b) the evidence could not have been discovered and produced
by the records. during trial even with the exercise of reasonable diligence; and
 Moreover, when factual findings of RTC are confirmed by CA, said facts o (c) the evidence is material and not merely corroborative,
are final and conclusive on SC, unless the same are not supported by the cumulative or impeaching and is of such weight that if admitted,
evidence on record. would probably change the judgment
 In the present case, the findings of fact of CA are supported by the  In order that a evidence may be regarded as newly discovered for
records. purposes of granting a new trial, it is essential to show that the offering
 SC agrees with the observation of CA that the conclusion of RTC that party exercised reasonable diligence in seeking to locate such evidence
petitioners had encroached on respondents lot was substantiated by the before or during trial but had nonetheless failed to secure it
similar findings of both Engr. Santamaria and Engr. De Lara; and that  The evidence offered by petitioners, TCT 180189 issued by Registry of
petitioners allegation that De Laras report was technically and grossly Deeds of Manila not to respondent, but to Spouses Tupaz, does not satisfy
ineffective was unsupported by any evidence the aforementioned requisites.
 Although the survey report of Engr. De Lara was not verified, and  Although petitioners found out about the existence of said TCT only after
therefore cannot be considered a public document, SC notes that the due trial, they could have easily discovered the same before or during the
execution and genuineness thereof was established during the trial. trial of the case had they bothered to check the TCT of respondents lot to
o De Lara testified before RTC that he submitted a survey report ascertain whether or not it overlapped with their own lot.
and plan, and properly identified said documents and his  TCT No. 180189 is hardly material to their case, considering that
signature thereon. respondents TCT is of a different number: TCT No. 180199.
o Hence, there was no error in the admission of said pieces of  It is not difficult to see why the two TCT’s refer to different parcels of
evidence, for the due execution and authenticity thereof were land and owners.
proven in accordance with Sec 21, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules  Such piece of evidence would certainly not have affected, much less,
of Court: altered the outcome of the case.
o before any private document offered as authentic is received in  Petition is denied for lack of merit. CA affirmed.
evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be proved either:
o (a) by anyone who saw the document executed or written;
o (b) by evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting
of the maker or