This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2001-11-28 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| That private respondent had already abandoned the premises is not a newly found evidence for admittedly, petitioner knew of it before the trial court rendered its decision. Hence, it could not be introduced through a motion for new trial under Section 1 Rule 37 of the Rules of Court.[19] Neither could said abandonment be introduced through a motion to reopen, because such motion could only be made after the case was submitted for decision but before judgment is actually rendered.[20] In this case, it was only introduced as evidence in the motion filed after judgment, which in our view is appropriately one for reconsideration. Had the trial court not allowed petitioner to present said proof of abandonment, said court would not have had the chance to correct its decision. It would have effectively forced private respondent to continue with the contract to buy the house and lot on installment, even if she had lost interest in performing her obligations under that contract to the great prejudice of petitioner. | |||||