SPECIAL FORMER TWELFTH DIVISION

[CA-G.R. SP No. 39527.  January 23, 1998.]

GEMINIANO & SOCORRO AQUINO, petitioners, vs. SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, ET AL.,

D E C I S I O N

BARCELONA, J p:

This is a motion for new trial filed by petitioners based on newly-discovered evidence which consists of three (3) "vital" documents, viz.:

(1)        Notice of Land Acquisition dated January 19, 1993, received by petitioners from the Regional Office, DAR, Region IV, Pasig, Metro Manila, on February 2, 1993;

(2)        Notice of Land Valuation dated June 25, 1993, and received by petitioners from the DAR Regional Office, Region IV, Pasig, Metro Manila, on July 13, 1993;

(3)        Communication of petitioners to DAR, Regional Office, Region IV, Pasig, Metro Manila dated July 25, 1993, rejecting the offer of valuation.

According to petitioners; (a) these documents were discovered after the trial; (b) these documents could not be discovered and produced at the trial and before judgment even with the exercise of reasonable diligence; (c) these documents are material to the issue and not merely cumulative, corroborative or impeaching, and is of such weight that, if admitted, would probably change the judgment. (pp. 4-5, Motion for New Trial; pp. 171-172, Rollo)

The instant motion for new trial must be denied for lack of merit.

It must be noted that in their petition filed on January 19, 1996, petitioners categorically claimed that the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) did not notify them of the acquisition of their landholding, and that the DAR failed to notify them of its offer of valuation for the just compensation of the property. (p. 4, Petition; p. 5, Rollo) Thus, petitioners alleged that "it was a surprise and even shocking to petitioners to hear from private respondents that CLOA had been issued to them by the DAR." (pp. 4-5 Petition; pp. 5-6, Rollo) However, in their motion for new trial, petitioner Geminiano Aquino himself admits that they received the Notice of Land Acquisition on February 2, 1993; the Notice of Land Valuation on July 13, 1993; and the letter rejecting the offer of valuation was dated July 25, 1993. Petitioners now submit in his affidavit that prior to the preparation and filing of the petition, he asked his sister (co-petitioner) about the notices, thus negating his earlier averment of lack of notice and due process. In any event, the documents presented by petitioners do not qualify as newly discovered evidence. In order for a particular piece of evidence to be properly regarded as "newly discovered" for the purpose of granting new trial, the following requisites must concur: (a) the evidence have 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. (Garrido v. Court of Appeals, 236 SCRA 450, at page 456 [1994]) At the pith of these requirements is that what is essential is not so much the time when the evidence offered first sprang into existence nor the time when it first came to the knowledge of the party, now submitting it; rather, that the offering party had exercised reasonable diligence in producing or locating such evidence before or during trial but had nonetheless failed to secure it. (Garrido v. Court of Appeals, ibid.) Thus, as the records show, even prior to the filing of the special civil action for certiorari, these documents were already in existence and could easily have been produced by petitioners had they exercised reasonable diligence for its production. The fact that such documents were misplaced is not reason enough for the Court to grant new trial since as heretofore stated, petitioner Geminiano Aquino, with the exercise of reasonable diligence, could have easily inquired from his sister even prior to the filing of the petition. Moreover, even if petitioners' sister was not in possession of these documents, they could have easily procured copies of such documents from the Department of Agrarian Reform. Verily, therefore, these documents do not qualify as newly discovered evidence.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion for New Trial is hereby DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Luna and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ ., concur.