G.R. No. L-17647




Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-17647 June 16, 1965 HERMINIA GODUCO, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and MARIA B. CASTRO, respondents. R E S O L U T I O N^* PAREDES, J.: On February 28, 1964, this Court rendered judgment in the above entitled case affirming the findings and conclusions of the Court of First Instance of Manila and the Court of Appeals. The Motion for Reconsideration and/or New Trial filed by appellant thru counsel on March 28, 1964 was denied in a Resolution dated March 30, 1964. Thereafter a Second Motion for Reconsideration and/or New Trial was presented and other pleadings by appellant herself. Because of the nature of the allegations contained in the second motion for reconsideration, respondents were required to answer the same on April 15, 1964. This resolution of the Court evinced a manifestation from Atty. Rosendo Tansinsin, former counsel of Maria B. Castro (now deceased) to the effect that he was not the counsel of the administratrix of the Intestate Estate of Maria B. Castro, but Senator Ambrosio Padilla; that Atty. Padilla had already instituted a Complaint for Reconveyance against Sostenes Campillo, involving the land, the sale of which was the cause of appellant's claim for commission, subject of the present controversy; and that he (Tansinsin) was of the opinion that the claim of appellant should be presented in the CFI of Manila where the Intestate Proceedings of the estate of Maria B. Castro are pending (Sp. Proc. No. 52975). The manifestation of Atty. Rosendo Tansinsin was referred to the Padilla Law Offices for comment. In their comment, they stated, among others, that they have no objection to the suggestion of Atty. Tansinsin, but prayed that the motion for reconsideration should not be denied, but should be held in abeyance to await the result of the claim. Both the first and second motions for reconsideration and/or New Trial are based on "newly discovered evidence," consisting of a receipt purportedly thumb-marked by Mauricia Dionisio, owner of the lot in question, stating that she received from the late Maria B. Castro the sum of FIFTY THOUSAND (P50,000.00) PESOS, in full payment of said land. The second Motion for Reconsideration and/or New Trial and the prayer of counsel for the Administratrix of the Intestate Estate of Maria B. Castro, should be, as they are hereby DENIED, for being predicated on allegedly newly discovered evidence which this Court is not now authorized to entertain. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is conclusive as to the facts, and cannot be reviewed by the Supreme Court. Accordingly, in an appeal by certiorari to the Supreme Court, the latter has no jurisdiction to entertain motion for new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence, for only questions of fact are involved therein. (2 Moran Comments on the Rules of Court 413 [1963 ed.] citing cases in support thereof, emphasis supplied.) In the decision sought to be reconsidered, We AFFIRMED the findings of fact and conclusions of both the CFI and Court of Appeals. Moreover, in a manifestation submitted by Atty. Tansinsin, former counsel of private party respondent Maria B. Castro, dated December 10, 1964, it was shown that petitioner herein Herminia Goduco has already presented a motion in said Sp. Proc. No. 52975, for the recognition of her money claim against the estate of Maria B. Castro, which claim, has been admitted by the probate court and for which claim, the administratrix therein was required to file her answer. On April 28, 1965, the claimant herself, made a similar manifestation assisted by her new lawyer Mrs. Agustina Rosete Navarro. Counsel for the administratrix does not deny the assertion of Atty. Tansinsin, that a reconveyance case has been presented by the estate against Sostenes Campillo, which renders the issues raised in the motion for reconsideration and/or new trial, also moot or academic. Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Regala, Bengzon, J.P., and Zaldivar, JJ., concur. Barrera and Makalintal, JJ., took no part. Footnotes ^*Editor's Note: See main decision in 10 SCRA 275. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation