Newly Discovered Evidence

Crispino et al v. Tansay as substituted by Yap

Facts:

Tansay, when still alive, sued Crispino et al for revocation of titles. The RTC ruled in
favor of Tansay. Three years after the ruling, Tansay executed an Affidavit called Confirmation
of Previous Sales. On appeal with the CA, Tansay passed away, thus was substituted by her
only legal heir, Yap. She filed before the CA an Urgent Motion to Remand Records of the
Case for the Re-Opening of Trial. Said Motion is anchored on the said Affidavit. The CA
denied it. Thus the Petition.

Issue:

Is the Affidavit a newly discovered evidence?

Ruling:

No, the the Affidavit is not a newly discovered evidence because the second requisite
under the Berry Rule (or the CA’s internal rules) is absent. It is when such evidence could not
have been discovered and produced at the trial even with the exercise of reasonable diligence,
because the Affidavit was allegedly executed three years after the RTC rendered its ruling.
Hence, it could not have been discovered by petitioners prior to trial by the exercise of due
diligence.

Noted further that the Court of Appeals' power to receive evidence to resolve factual
issues in cases falling within its original and appellate jurisdiction is qualified by its internal
rules. In an ordinary appeal, the Court of Appeals may receive evidence when a MNT is granted
based on newly discovered evidence.