G.R. No. L-72321, December 8, 1988
DIOSDIDIT, BALDOMERO, FILOMENO, ELPIDIO, AIDA, all surnamed CUENCA, petitioners, vs. RESTITUTO CUENCA, MELADORA CUENCA and COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondents Restituto and Meladora Cuenca filed a complaint for recovery of real property against petitioners before the Court of First Instance of Davao del Norte. The trial court dismissed the complaint. On appeal, the then Intermediate Appellate Court reversed the trial court’s decision, declaring Restituto the absolute owner of one parcel of land and declaring another parcel as conjugal property of the deceased spouses Agripino Cuenca and Maria Bangahon, to be partitioned among the heirs. Petitioners received the appellate decision on December 3, 1984. They filed a motion for reconsideration on December 14, 1984, and subsequently filed a Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration and/or Motion for New Trial on February 22, 1985, based on newly discovered evidence consisting of Bureau of Lands documents. The appellate court denied both motions, ruling the motion for new trial was filed out of time under Rule 37 of the Rules of Court, which prescribes a 30-day period from notice of judgment.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly denied the motion for new trial on the ground of prescription under Rule 37.

RULING

No, the appellate court erred in applying Rule 37. The Supreme Court clarified the distinction between Rule 37, governing motions for new trial before trial courts, and Rule 53, governing such motions before the Court of Appeals. Rule 53 allows a motion for new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence to be filed “before a final order or judgment rendered by the Court of Appeals becomes executory.” Since petitioners filed their motion before the appellate court’s judgment became final and executory, it was filed within the reglementary period under the correct rule, Rule 53. However, the Supreme Court proceeded to evaluate the merits of the newly discovered evidence to avoid remand. The evidence consisted of documents purportedly showing the subject lands were surveyed and approved during the marriage of Agripino Cuenca and petitioner Engracia Basadre, which petitioners argued raised the presumption under Article 160 of the Civil Code that the properties were conjugal. The Court held the presumption only applies when acquisition during marriage is proven. For homestead lands, acquisition is deemed perfected upon approval of the application, not the survey. The documents did not establish the homestead claims were perfected during that marriage. Furthermore, titles to several parcels were already in the respondents’ names, making the presumption inapplicable. Thus, the evidence would not probably alter the result. The denial of the motion for new trial was affirmed, but on substantive merits, not on procedural timeliness. The petition was dismissed.