ST. PETER MEMORIAL PARK, INC. vs CAMPOS, JR.

consolidated with BANCO decision: respondent judge - Also this newly discovered evidence
FILIPINO SAVINGS & MORTGAGE BANK vs. HON. JOSE CAMPOS prompted the filing of motion for new trial
 1933 - Antonio Cleofas, their predecessor – his title burned in a fire.
Topic: Newly Discovered Evidence Private respondent (PR) did not take any step to reconstruct said title
until the real estate boom in Quezon City.
 1945 - Evidence of PR: Antonio took possession of the lot and occupied
FACTS the same until his death
 Spouses Regino Cleofas and Lucia de la Cruz filed suit against St. Peter But when they filed a petition for reconstruction in the CFI QC,
Memorial Park, Inc. (St. Peter), Araceli Wijangco del Rosario, National they discovered that the lot was already in the name of Narciso
Investment and Development Corporation (NIDC), Banco Filipino and Martin – predecessors of the Memorial Park. However, to
Savings and Mortgage Bank (Banco Filipino), the Register of Deeds of support PR’s allegation, they presented a “mother title” of the PE.
Rizal, the Register of Deeds of Quezon City and the Sheriff of Quezon (contained many sheets because the estate was large)
City. In their amended complaint, the spouses prayed:  On the other hand: Memorial Park and Banco Filipino evidence:
 That they be declared the rightful owners of Lot No. 719 of the  July 15, 1921 - A. Cleofas executed a Deed of Assignment of Sales of Lot
Piedad Estate, 719 in favor of Martin – deed approved on July 22, 1921
 That the Torrens Title to said lot be reconstituted, the title  May 2, 1932 - Bureau of Lands issued a Deed of Conveyance of Lot 719
thereto of their deceased predecessor, Antonio Cleofas, having in favor of Martin and Narciso upon payment of full price – deed issued
been burned in a fire in 1933; to both on June 17, 1932. Then declared the lot in their name for
 That the certificates of title over said lot in the name of the taxation.
Memorial Park, and that in the name of Wijangco del Rosario,  May 1, 1937 - They sold the lot to Nazario Roque. Upon his death – to
and all the certificates of title from which these certificates were heirs.
derived be declared null and void;  1967 - St. Peter Memorial Park purchased Lot 719 for value and in good
That the mortgages over said, lot constituted in favor of Banco faith from the heirs.
Filipino and the NIDC be declared null and void;
 That the Memorial Park be ordered to pay plaintiffs damages. Newly Discovered Evidence: St. Peter solved the issue of the missing details of the
May 2, 1973 After trial, lower court decision in favor of the torn evidence. The entry on that page found by respondent judge refers to a
plaintiffs and against the defendants. June 23, 1973 The different lot. These are newly discovered evidence within the meaning of par.
Memorial Park and Banco Filipino filed their joint motion for (b), Sec. 1, Rule 137 of the ROC and/or evidence not presented due to mistake or
reconsideration of the decision. June 30, 1973 excusable negligence within the purview of par. (a) supra.
 They filed a joint motion for new trial.
 July 9, 1973 - The Memorial Park filed a supplement to the motion for  February 21, 1974 – Banco Filipino and the Memorial Park filed their
reconsideration with prayer for new trial. Plaintiffs opposed the motion notice of appeal from the decision of May 2, 1973, and filed their cash
for reconsideration and/or new trial. bond. Within the reglementary period they filed their joint record on
 January 10, 1974 - The plaintiffs moved for issuance of writ of appeal.
preliminary injunction and restoration of receivership.  February 28, 1974 - The Memorial Park filed before the Supreme Court
February 5, 1974 - The trial court denied new trial. (From this decision, it a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction (L-
appears that the parties do not dispute that the lot of Piedad Estate (PE for 38280) against the trial judge and the plaintiff spouses, seeking
brevity) forms part of the land covered by Original Certificate Title No. 614 in annulment of the court's order denying new trial, on the ground that
the name of the Government of the Philippine Islands.) the same was issued in grave abuse of discretion.
 March 7, 1974 Court issued a restraining order: (respondent judge)
 March 20, 1909 – Director of Lands, as administrator of PE, executed a restrained from enforcing decision of May 2, 1973 and Feb. 5, 1974.
contract in favor of Antonio Cleofas  July 8, 1974 Court dismissed the appeal filed by both the Memorial Park
 July 1929 - Entry made showing the award and final sale to A. Cleofas and Banco Filipino.
by the government (however, the page15 of OCT 614 where this is
found is torn and only parts of the details appears) - Basis of the
ISSUE/S Gauged by these standards, we find the evidence proposed to be presented by
1.) Whether the respondent judge acted in grave abuse of discretion in petitioner in a new trial are newly discovered evidence within the
dismissing the Memorial Park and Banco Filipino in its order of Jul 8, contemplation of the Rules of Court. The said evidence could not have been
1974? YES produced during the trial because the subject-matter of the trial was Lot No.
2.) Whether respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion when 719. Petitioner correctly searched, discovered and presented during that trial,
it denied in its order a motion for new trial of the Memorial Park? YES all documents pertaining to Lot No. 719 only. The evidence sought to be
presented in a new trial by petitioner became pertinent and important only
RULING: after trial, when judgment was rendered by respondent Judge that private
Petition granted. The grounds cited by petitioners for the allowance of the writ respondents have a valid and subsisting title to Lot No. 719 on the basis of sheet
of certiorari, justify the giving of due course to the petitions in these two cases, 15 of OCT No. 614 (Exh. "A") which on its fact does not mention Lot No. 719.
for ordinary appeal will not be adequate. Respondent Judge committed grave Based on the incomplete data appearing on Exh. "A", petitioner conducted a new
abuse of discretion in denying the motion for new trial, having disregarded in a search and discovered the evidence it now seeks to present in a new trial,
capricious and arbitrary manner, the newly discovered evidence. indubitably showing that sheet 15 of OCT No. 614 refers to a title to Lot No. 640,
and not to Lot No. 719 in the name of petitioner. If admitted in a new trial, these
The general rule is that the extraordinary writ of certiorari is not proper when newly discovered evidence will probably alter the judgment of the trial court.
ordinary appeal is available. However, we have granted the writ in cases where
it is shown that appeal would be inadequate, slow, and insufficient and will not In making the foregoing conclusions, we do not by any means intend to
promptly relieve petitioner from the injurious effects of the order complained prejudge the effect of such evidence on the outcome of the case. We are
of. The grounds cited by petitioners for the allowance of the writ of certiorari, confining ourselves to the conclusion that the evidence intended to be
justify the giving of due course to the petitions in these two cases, for ordinary submitted, "would probably alter the result."
appeal will not be adequate. As many memorial lot buyers are affected, and the
very integrity of the Torrens system is at stake, public interest is involved. We hold that respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion in denying
the motion for new trial, having disregarded in a capricious and arbitrary
Under paragraph (b), Sec. 1, Rule 37 of the Rules of Court, the requisites for the manner, the newly discovered evidence 
grant of new trial based on:têñ.£îhqwâ£
NEW TRIAL GRANTED. REMANDED TO TRIAL COURT.
Newly discovered evidence, which he could not, with
reasonable diligence, have discovered, and produced at the
trial, and which if presented would probably alter the result,

are: (1) that such evidence has been discovered after the trial; (2) that even
with the exercise of reasonable diligence, it could not have been discovered and
produced at that trial; and (3) that such evidence is of such a nature as to alter
the result of the case if admitted (People vs. Ventura, 5 SCRA 741).

This rule for the granting of a motion for new trial, as all other rules of
procedure, should be liberally construed to assist the parties in obtaining a just
and speedy determination of their rights. Court litigations are primarily for the
search of truth, and a liberal interpretation of the rules by which both parties
are given the fullest opportunity to adduce proofs is the best way to find out
such truth. The dispensation of justice and vindication of legitimate grievances
should not be barred by technicalities (Sec. 1, Rule 1, Revised Rules of Court;
Talavera vs. Mangoba, L-18373, August 31, 1963, 8 SCRA 837).