Ybiernas vs. Tanco-Gabaldon

A summary judgment that disposes of all issues except the amount of damages is a final, appealable judgment. Furthermore, judicial admissions do not preclude a party from presenting newly discovered evidence contradicting the admitted fact when the admission was made in good faith reliance on a court order later shown to be spurious.

Estrella Mapa Vda. de Ybiernas owned a parcel of land in Negros Occidental covered by TCT No. T-83976. On April 28, 1988, she executed a Deed of Absolute Sale over the property in favor of her heirs. Subsequently, an RTC Order in Cadastral Case No. 10 directed the registration and annotation of the sale on the title. On October 29, 1991, respondents filed a sum of money case against Estrella and caused the attachment and levy of the subject property. Upon learning of the levy, the heirs filed an affidavit of third-party claim, asserting their ownership based on the prior deed of sale.

• Ownership and Transfer: Estrella Mapa Vda. de Ybiernas owned land in Negros Occidental. She executed a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of her heirs (Dionisio, Manuel, Vicente, and Maria) on April 28, 1988.
• Annotation of Sale: On June 30, 1989, RTC Bacolod City, Branch 47, issued an Order in Cadastral Case No. 10 directing the registration and annotation of the Deed of Absolute Sale without the owner's duplicate. The Deed and Order were annotated on TCT No. T-83976 on July 5, 1989.
• Attachment and Levy: On October 29, 1991, respondents filed a complaint for sum of money against Estrella in RTC Pasig City. A writ of preliminary attachment was issued, and the sheriff levied the subject property. The notice of attachment was annotated on the title on November 13, 1991.
• Third-Party Claim: Dionisio Ybiernas filed an Affidavit of Third-Party Claim, but respondents filed an indemnity bond, and the levy was maintained. The Pasig RTC eventually ruled in favor of respondents, which was affirmed up to the Supreme Court.
• Quieting of Title: On November 28, 2001, petitioners filed a complaint for quieting of title, arguing the levy was invalid because the property no longer belonged to Estrella. During pre-trial, the parties admitted the existence of the RTC Order dated June 30, 1989.
• Summary Judgment: The RTC granted petitioners' motion for summary judgment, declaring the levy invalid and cancelling the attachment annotation, leaving only the amount of damages to be determined.
• Discovery of Spurious Documents: While the appeal was pending in the CA, respondents discovered certifications from the Clerks of Court of RTC Bacolod and the National Archives stating that Cadastral Case No. 10 never existed and the notarized Deed of Sale was not on file. Respondents filed a motion for new trial based on this newly discovered evidence, which the CA granted.

• Appealability of Summary Judgment: Petitioners argued that the RTC decision was a partial summary judgment because it did not settle the issue of damages, making it interlocutory and not appealable. Consequently, the CA never acquired jurisdiction over the case or the motion for new trial.
• Judicial Admission: Petitioners maintained that respondents admitted the existence of the RTC Order dated June 30, 1989, which necessarily carried the admission that the cadastral proceedings existed. Respondents are bound by this judicial admission and cannot present evidence to contradict it.
• Newly Discovered Evidence: Petitioners insisted that the certifications are self-serving, inconclusive, and lack probative value, and that respondents failed to exercise reasonable diligence in discovering them earlier.

• Finality of Judgment: Respondents countered that the summary judgment was a proper subject of appeal because it completely disposed of all issues except the amount of damages.
• Scope of Admission: Respondents argued they only admitted the existence of the Order, not the existence of Cadastral Case No. 10, and relied in good faith on the presumption of regularity of the court order.
• Due Diligence and Materiality: Respondents asserted they exercised reasonable diligence by relying on the veracity of the court order, and the newly discovered evidence is material and would probably change the judgment by showing the deed and order were spurious.

• Appealability: Whether the RTC summary judgment, which left the amount of damages undetermined, is a final and appealable judgment subject to a motion for new trial.
• Judicial Admissions: Whether a party is proscribed from presenting newly discovered evidence disproving the existence of a case from which an admitted court order emanated.
• Newly Discovered Evidence: Whether the certifications attesting to the non-existence of the cadastral case and deed of sale constitute newly discovered evidence warranting a new trial.

• Appealability: The summary judgment is final and appealable. A summary judgment that fully determines the rights and obligations of the parties, leaving only the amount of damages unresolved, satisfies the requirements of a final judgment. Under Section 3, Rule 35 of the Rules of Court, a summary judgment may be rendered except as to the amount of damages; the right to damages may be resolved while the amount is assessed later. The case was distinguished from GSIS v. Philippine Village Hotel, where the right to damages remained unresolved.
• Judicial Admissions: Respondents are not proscribed from presenting the evidence. They admitted only the existence of the Order, not the underlying cadastral case. Judicial admissions must be construed considering the purpose and surrounding circumstances; respondents relied in good faith on the presumption of regularity of the court order, and it would be prejudicial to prevent them from proving the order is spurious.
• Newly Discovered Evidence: The certifications qualify as newly discovered evidence warranting a new trial. The due diligence requirement is satisfied because respondents relied in good faith on the veracity of the court order presented by petitioners. Due diligence contemplates acting reasonably and in good faith in light of the totality of circumstances and facts known to the movant.

• Final Judgment — A final judgment or order is one that finally disposes of a case, leaving nothing more for the court to do. A summary judgment that resolves all issues except the amount of damages is a final judgment, as the right to damages may be resolved while the amount is left for determination.
• Judicial Admissions — An admission made by a party in the course of proceedings dispenses with the need for proof but may be contradicted by a showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made. Admissions must be construed in light of the purpose for which they are used and the surrounding circumstances.
• Newly Discovered Evidence — To warrant a new trial, the following must be shown: (1) the evidence was discovered after trial; (2) it could not have been discovered and produced at trial with reasonable diligence; (3) it is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative, or impeaching; and (4) it is of such weight that it would probably change the judgment. Due diligence requires both a time component (reasonable promptness) and a good faith component (acting reasonably in light of known facts).

• "Just like any other judgment, a summary judgment that satisfies the requirements of a final judgment will be considered as such."
• "In construing an admission, the court should consider the purpose for which the admission is used and the surrounding circumstances and statements."
• "Due diligence contemplates that the defendant acts reasonably and in good faith to obtain the evidence, in light of the totality of the circumstances and the facts known to him."

• GSIS v. Philippine Village Hotel, Inc., 482 Phil. 47 (2004) — Distinguished. In that case, the summary judgment specifically stated that trial on the issue of damages shall resume, meaning the right to damages was unresolved. In the present case, the right to damages was resolved, leaving only the amount undetermined.
• Jugador v. De Vera, 94 Phil. 704 (1954) — Followed. A summary judgment may be rendered except as to the amount of damages; the court may resolve the right to damages and subsequently assess the amount recoverable.
• Custodio v. Sandiganbayan, 493 Phil. 194 (2005) — Followed. Defined the due diligence requirement for newly discovered evidence as having both a time component and a good faith component, requiring the movant to act reasonably and in good faith in light of the totality of circumstances.

• Section 3, Rule 35, Rules of Court — Provides that a summary judgment may be rendered if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, except as to the amount of damages. Applied to hold that the RTC's summary judgment resolving the right to damages but not the amount was a final, appealable judgment.
• Section 1, Rule 53, Rules of Court — Allows a party to file a motion for new trial in the Court of Appeals on the ground of newly discovered evidence after appeal has been perfected and before the CA loses jurisdiction. Applied to uphold the CA's grant of the motion for new trial.

Carpio (Chairperson), Peralta, Abad