FACTS:

The petitioners, Spouses Ramon and Felicisima Dioso, filed a complaint against the respondents, Spouses Tomas and Leonora Eraña Cardeño, for specific performance and/or easement of right of way. The subject of the complaint is Lot 248-A, which is one of the sublots of Lot 248 located in Sta. Rosa, Laguna. The petitioners wanted to construct a new house on the interior portion of Lot 248-A and demanded a right of way to F. Gomez St. based on a document called Pinanumpaang Salaysay executed between respondent Leonora Cardeño and Encarnacion Javel. The trial court ruled in favor of the respondents, finding insufficient evidence to establish the existence of the agreement granting a right of way. The trial court also noted that even if a voluntary easement existed, the petitioners would be obliged to pay indemnity. The trial court dismissed the complaint and ordered the petitioners to pay attorney's fees. The petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the decision of the trial court.

The petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration/new trial with the appellate court, arguing that it erred in adopting the factual findings of the trial court instead of making its own findings. The appellate court denied the motion, stating that the additional evidence submitted by the petitioners could not be considered newly discovered evidence since they could have been secured earlier with due diligence. The petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court, claiming that the appellate court erred in denying their motion for reconsideration/new trial and should have admitted the certified photocopy of the Pinanumpaang Salaysay as evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the appellate court.

The petitioners filed a motion for a new trial before the Court of Appeals (CA) based on newly discovered evidence. However, the newly discovered evidence presented by the petitioners did not meet the requisites for granting a new trial. The evidence was not discovered after trial, could have been discovered and presented during trial with reasonable diligence, and was not material as it did not possibly change the judgment. Respondent Leonora Cardeño's 1992 evidence of income was not discovered after trial.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in denying the petitioners' motion for reconsideration/new trial.

2. Whether the petitioners were able to establish the existence of the Pinanumpaang Salaysay by secondary evidence.

3. • Whether the witness can identify the document in question
4. • Whether the signatures in the document are authentic

5. Whether the photocopy of the Pinanumpaang Salaysay can be considered as secondary evidence to prove its contents.

6. Whether the existence and due execution of the Pinanumpaang Salaysay have been sufficiently established.

RULING:

1. The Court affirms the ruling of the Court of Appeals. The newly discovered evidence submitted by the petitioners does not meet the requisites for new trial. The evidence already existed at the time of the trial and the petitioners failed to exercise reasonable diligence in obtaining them.

2. The Court rules in favor of the petitioners. The admission of secondary evidence in the case of loss or unavailability of the original document is warranted, given satisfactory proof of the execution or existence of the original, its loss or destruction, and the unavailability not being due to bad faith of the offeror. The petitioners presented testimonial evidence and a photocopy of the Pinanumpaang Salaysay, as well as proof of its due execution and loss or unavailability.

3. • The witness testified that he can identify the document as the Sinumpaang Salaysay that was prepared and signed by the Eraña sisters in his presence.
4. • The witness also identified the signatures of the Eraña sisters and Tomas Cardeño in the document.
5. • The court allowed the document to be marked as exhibits, including the signatures of the witnesses and the mayor.

6. Yes, the photocopy of the Pinanumpaang Salaysay can be considered as secondary evidence to prove its contents. The rule on the admission of secondary evidence provides that the contents of the original document may be proved by a copy, by a recital of its contents in some authentic document, or by the recollection of witnesses, in the order stated. In this case, since the original document could not be produced despite earnest efforts, the presentation of a photocopy as secondary evidence is justified.

7. Yes, the existence and due execution of the Pinanumpaang Salaysay have been sufficiently established. There was proof of its due execution, and the respondents never categorically denied the existence or the presence of their signatures thereon. This indicates the genuineness of the document.

PRINCIPLES:

• Newly discovered evidence for new trial requires the concurrence of requisites: (a) discovered after trial, (b) could not have been discovered during trial with reasonable diligence, and (c) material and of such weight that, if admitted, would probably change the judgment.

• When the original document is lost or unavailable, secondary evidence may be admitted upon proof of execution or existence, loss or non-production, and unavailability not being due to bad faith.

• Clients are generally bound by the mistakes, negligence, and omission of their counsel.

• The testimony of a witness who was present during the preparation and signing of a document can establish its authenticity.

• In cases involving the identification of signatures, the testimony of a witness who personally witnessed the signing of the document is crucial.

• The contents of the original document may be proved by secondary evidence, such as a photocopy, when the original document cannot be produced despite earnest efforts.

• The existence and due execution of a document can be established through proof of its due execution and absence of categorical denial from the opposing party.