Finals Cases

Tantano v Espina Caboverde

People v Roque (In Relation to Southern Hemisphere Case, 632 SCRA October 5, 2010)

Calleja v Panday

Mangahas v Brobio

Phil Bank of Communications v Go

#12 MATIAS, Michelle Dulce Candelaria

Remedies Against Final Judgment

IX. Rule 37

Mendezona vs Ozamis

G.R. No. 143370

February 6, 2002

Doctrine. New Trial; Newly Discovered Evidence; Requisites. A motion for new trial upon the ground of
newly discovered evidence is properly granted only where there is concurrence of the following
requisites, namely: (a) the evidence had been discovered after trial ;(b) the evidence could not have been
discovered and produced during the trial even with the exercise of reasonable diligence; and (c) the
evidence is material and not merely corroborative, cumulative or impeaching and is of such weight that if
admitted, would probably alter the result. All three (3) requisites must characterize the evidence sought to
be introduced at the new trial.

Facts: Petitioners are relatives of Carmen Ozamis with whom they entered into a Contract of Sale, for
consideration, over 3 parcels of land in Lahug, Cebu City. They filed an action to quiet title of a cloud over
their properties by reason an inscription of notice of lis pendens caused by the guardians appointed for
Carmen Ozamiz through guardianship proceedings (Sp. Proc. No. 1250). Respondents opposed the
petitioners claim of ownership of the Lahug property and alleged that the titles issued in the petitioners
names are defective and illegal, and the ownership of the said property was acquired in bad faith and
without value inasmuch as the consideration for the sale is grossly inadequate and unconscionable. The
trial court found the sale valid, and such decision was appealed to the CA who reversed the former.

Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision of the appellate court. Subsequent thereto,
the petitioners filed a motion for a new trial and/or for reception of evidence. They contended, among
other things, that the appellate court totally ignored the testimony of Judge Teodorico Durias regarding the
mental condition of Carmen Ozamiz a month before the execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale in
question, which testimony was taken in the Sp. Proc. No. 1250. However, Judge Durias was not
presented as a witness in the action to quiet title. Petitioners alleged that Judge Duriass testimony is a
newly-discovered evidence which could not have been discovered prior to the trial in the court below by
the exercise of due diligence.
Issue: WON the testimony of Judge Durias is a newly-discovered evidence.
Held: No, it is not a newly-discovered evidence. A motion for new trial upon the ground of newly
discovered evidence is properly granted only where there is concurrence of the following requisites,
namely:
(a) the evidence had been discovered after trial;
(b) the evidence could not have been discovered and produced during trial even with the exercise of
reasonable diligence; and
(c) the evidence is material and not merely corroborative, cumulative or impeaching and is of such
weight that if admitted, would probably alter the result.
All three (3) requisites must characterize the evidence sought to be introduced at the new trial. We
find that the requirement of reasonable diligence has not been met by the petitioners. As early as the pre-
trial of the case at bar, the name of Judge Durias has already cropped up as a possible witness for the
defendants, herein respondents. That the respondents chose not to present him is not an indicia per se of
suppression of evidence, since a party in a civil case is free to choose who to present as his witness.
Neither can Judge Durias testimony in another case be considered as newly discovered evidence since
the facts to be testified to by Judge Durias which were existing before and during the trial, could have
been presented by the petitioners at the trial below. The testimony of Judge Durias has been in existence
waiting only to be elicited from him by questioning. It has been held that a lack of diligence is exhibited
where the newly discovered evidence was necessary or proper under the pleadings, and its existence
must have occurred to the party in the course of the preparation of the case, but no effort was made to
secure it. Thus, the testimony of Judge Durias cannot be considered as newly discovered evidence to
warrant a new trial.

XII. Rule 47

Celerina J. Santos vs Ricardo T. Santos

G. R. 187061

October 8, 2014

Doctrine. Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Annulment of Judgment: Annulment of judgment is the remedy
when the Regional Trial Courts judgment, order, or resolution has become final, and the remedies of new
trial, appeal, petition for relief (or other appropriate remedies) are no longer available through no fault of
the petitioner.

Facts: On July 27, 2007, the Regional Trial Court of Tarlac City declared petitioner Celerina J. Santos
(Celerina) presumptively dead after her husband, respondent Ricardo T. Santos (Ricardo), had filed a
petition for declaration of absence or presumptive death for the purpose of remarriage on June 15, 2007.
Ricardo remarried on September 17, 2008.

Ricardo alleged that he exerted efforts to locate Celerina. He went to Celerina's parents in Cubao,
Quezon City, but they did not know their daughter's whereabouts. He also inquired about her from other
relatives and friends, but no one gave him any information. Ricardo claimed that it was almost 12 years
from the date of his Regional Trial Court petition since Celerina left. He believed that she had passed
away.

Celerina claimed that she learned about Ricardo's petition only sometime in October 2008 when she
could no longer avail the remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief, or other appropriate remedies.

On November 17, 2008, Celerina filed a petition for annulment of judgment before the Court of Appeals
on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. She argued that she was deprived her day in
court when Ricardo, despite his knowledge of her true residence, misrepresented to the court that she
was a resident of Tarlac City. According to Celerina, her true residence was in Neptune Extension,
Congressional Avenue, Quezon City. This residence had been her and Ricardo's conjugal dwelling since
1989 until Ricardo left in May 2008. As a result of Ricardo's misrepresentation, she was deprived of any
notice of and opportunity to oppose the petition declaring her presumptively dead.

Celerina claimed that all the allegations of Ricardo were fraudulent, that she never resided in Tarlac and
never left to work as a domestic helper abroad. Further, she also claimed that it was not true that she had
been absent for 12 years. Ricardo was aware that she never left their conjugal dwelling in Quezon City. It
was he who left the conjugal dwelling in May 2008 to cohabit with another woman. Celerina referred to a
joint affidavit executed by their children to support her contention that Ricardo made false allegations in
his petition. Celerina also argued that the court did not acquire jurisdiction over Ricardo's petition because
it had never been published in a newspaper. She added that the Office of the Solicitor General and the
Provincial Prosecutor's Office were not furnished copies of Ricardo's petition.

The Court of Appeals issued the resolution dated November 28, 2008, dismissing Celerina's petition for
annulment of judgment for being a wrong mode of remedy. According to the Court of Appeals, the proper
remedy was to file a sworn statement before the civil registry, declaring her reappearance in accordance
with Article 42 of the Family Code.

Celerina filed a motion for reconsideration but the same was denied.

Issue: Whether or not Court of Appeals erred in dismissing Celerinas petition for annulment of judgment
for being a wrong remedy for a fraudulently obtained judgment declaring presumptive death.
Held: Yes. The proper remedy for a judicial declaration of presumptive death obtained by extrinsic fraud is
an action to annul the judgment. An affidavit of reappearance is not the proper remedy when the person
declared presumptively dead has never been absent.

Annulment of judgment is the proper remedy when the Regional Trial Court's judgment, order, or
resolution has become final, and the remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate
remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner. The grounds for annulment of
judgment are extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction.

This court defined extrinsic fraud in Stilianopulos v. City of Legaspi. For fraud to become a basis for
annulment of judgment, it has to be extrinsic or actual. It is intrinsic when the fraudulent acts pertain to an
issue involved in the original action or where the acts constituting the fraud were or could have been
litigated, It is extrinsic or collateral when a litigant commits acts outside of the trial which prevents a party
from having a real contest, or from presenting all of his case, such that there is no fair submission of the
controversy.

Rules 57

Provisional Remedies

Lim Jr. vs Lazaro

G.R. 185734

July 3, 2013

Doctrine. Remedial Law. Provisional Remedies. Attachment; Preliminary Attachment; By its nature,
preliminary attachment under Rule 57 of the Rules of Court, is an ancillary remedy applied for not for its
own sake but to enable the attaching party to realize upon the relief sought and expected to be granted in
the main or principal action. It is a measure auxiliary or incidental to the main action.

Facts: Petitioner Lim Jr filed a complaint for a sum of money with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary attachment against the respondent Spouses Lazaro. The RTC granted the writ of preliminary
attachment application and upon the posting of the required bond issued the corresponding writ on
October 14, 2005. 3 parcels of land owned by the respondent spouses were levied upon.

The parties later entered into a Compromise Agreement whereby Sps. Lazaro agreed to pay Lim, Jr. the
amount of P2,351,064.80 on an installment basis, following a schedule of payments covering the period
from September 2006 until October 2013. The RTC rendered a decision on the basis of the compromise.

Sps. Lazaro then filed an Omnibus Motion, seeking to lift the writ of preliminary attachment annotated on
the subject TCTs.

In granting the Motion, the RTC ruled that a writ of preliminary attachment is a mere provisional or
ancillary remedy, resorted to by a litigant to protect and preserve certain rights and interests pending final
judgment. Considering that the case had already been considered closed and terminated by the rendition
of the decision based on the compromise agreement, the writ of preliminary attachment should be lifted
and quashed.

Issue: Whether or not the writ of preliminary attachment was properly lifted.

Held: NO. By its nature, preliminary attachment, under Rule 57 of the Rules of Court (Rule 57), is an
ancillary remedy applied for not for its own sake but to enable the attaching party to realize upon the relief
sought and expected to be granted in the main or principal action; it is a measure auxiliary or incidental to
the main action. As such, it is available during its pendency which may be resorted to by a litigant to
preserve and protect certain rights and interests during the interim, awaiting the ultimate effects of a final
judgment in the case. In addition, attachment is also availed of in order to acquire jurisdiction over the
action by actual or constructive seizure of the property in those instances where personal or substituted
service of summons on the defendant cannot be effected.

In this relation, while the provisions of Rule 57 are silent on the length of time within which an attachment
lien shall continue to subsist after the rendition of a final judgment, jurisprudence dictates that the said lien
continues until the debt is paid, or the sale is had under execution issued on the judgment or until the
judgment is satisfied, or the attachment discharged or vacated in the same manner provided by law.
Applying these principles, the Court finds that the discharge of the writ of preliminary attachment against
the properties of Sps. Lazaro was improper.

Records indicate that while the parties have entered into a compromise agreement which had already
been approved by the RTC in its January 5, 2007 Amended Decision, the obligations thereunder have yet
to be fully complied with particularly, the payment of the total compromise amount of P2,351,064.80.
Hence, given that the foregoing debt remains unpaid, the attachment of Sps. Lazaros properties should
have continued to subsist.

Rules 57

Provisional Remedies

Tantano Vs Espina-Caboverde

G.R. 203585

July 29, 2013

Doctrine. Remedial Law; Provisional Remedies; Receivership; Receivership is harsh remedy to be

granted with utmost circumspection and only in extreme situations.

Facts: