You are on page 1of 2

G.R. No. 116149 November 23, 1995 ELVIRA MATO VDA. DE OATE, subs ! u e" b# $er $e!

rs MARIA MATO%ALAMEDA, AIDA MATO, &OE MATO, 'A(ITA MATO )*" +,AN MATO II, petitioners, vs. T-E (O,RT O. A''EAL/ )*" E,LALIA M. TAG,0A, respondents. Petitioners challenge the decision of the trial court, as affirmed by respondent court, for lack of basis. They argue that the lower court and the Court of Appeals erred in considering evidence not formally offered by private respondent in accordance with the Rules of Court. The controversy involves Lot o. !"#!, a riceland located at Toran, Aparri, Cagayan covered by Transfer Certificate of Title o. T$"!%&. 'n (anuary !), !*&), an action for specific performance with damages was filed in the then Court of +irst ,nstance of Cagayan, -ranch ,, by .ulalia /arcita Taguba in her capacity as administratri0 of the estate of the deceased Leonor Taguba against .lvira /ato 1da. de '2ate. As the trial court found, the deceased Leonor Taguba bought the sub3ect parcel of land from .lvira /ato 1da. de '2ate sometime in !*#% for a consideration of P",))).)) payable in four 456 installments. Accordingly, she paid P7,7").)) on (anuary 7), !*#%, 1 P#").)) on +ebruary 78, !*#%, 2 P!,))).)) on /arch 7), !*#% 3 and P!,))).)) on (uly 7*, !*#%. 4 After full payment was made on (uly 7*, !*#%, the parties however failed to reduce their contract in writing. 'n 9ecember 8), !*#%, Leonor Taguba died. The instant complaint was filed when demand was made upon .lvira /ato 1da. de '2ate to e0ecute a public document of sale in favor of the deceased and her heirs and she refused. The trial court re3ected the petitioners: defense that .lvira /ato 1da. de '2ate contracted a verbal loan from Leonor Taguba in the amount of P!7,))).)) payable within a period of 5 years with !7; interest. Also disbelieved was the allegation that two 476 parcels of land covered by TCT o. "!%# and TCT o. "!%&

4the land in dispute6 were mortgaged by .lvira /ato 1da. de '2ate to Leonor Taguba as security for the payment of the loan and that only P",))).)) of the P!7,))).)) loan was given by Taguba. 'n (uly !7, !**), the trial court rendered 3udgment, the dispositive portion of which reads< =>.R.+'R. 3udgment is hereby rendered as follows< !. 9eclaring the agreement between the late Leonor Taguba and deceased defendant .lvira /ato 1da. de '2ate entered into on 7) (anuary !*#%, as a contract of ?to sell?@ 7. 'rdering the defendants to e0ecute the proper document to give effect to the contract within thirty 48)6 days, otherwise, this Court shall be forced to order the cancellation of the certificate of title covering Lot o. !"#! of the Aparri Cadastre, and the Register of 9eeds of Cagayan to issue another certificate of title in the name of the .state of Leonor Taguba@ 8. 'rdering the plaintiff to prosecute their money claims against deceased defendant:s estate in accordance with Aection 7!, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court. Costs de oficio. A' 'R9.R.9.
5

court, the respondent court held that .0hibits ?+, ?+$!,? ?+$7? and ?+8? though not formally offered, may still be admitted in evidence for having complied with the two 476 reCuisites for admission enunciated in our 3urisprudence, 1 that is, 4!6 evidence must be duly identified by testimony duly recorded and 476 it must be incorporated in the records of the case. A motion for reconsideration of said decision was denied for lack of merit on (une !8, !**5. 2 >ence, the present petition for review. Petitioners ascribe to the respondent court the following errors, to wit< T>. >' 'RA-L. C'DRT '+ APP.ALA .RR.9 , 'T RDL, E T>AT 9'CD/. TA =>,C> AR. /ARF.9 AA .G>,-,TA -DT 'T +'R/ALLH '++.R.9 AR. 'T T' -. C' A,9.R.9 -H T>. C'DRT@ T>. >' 'RA-L. C'DRT '+ APP.ALA .RR.9 , 'T RDL, E T>AT A, C. T>.R. =AA ' +,G.9 PDRC>AA. PR,C. '+ T>. LA 9 AER..9 DP' -H T>. PART,.A, AP.C,+,C P.R+'R/A C. C'DL9 'T -. A1A,L.9 -H T>. -DH.R T' +'RC. T>. '= .R '+ T>. LA 9 T' .G.CDT. A 9..9 '+ AAL.. 9 Aection 8" 4now Aection 856 of Rule !87 of the Rules of Court provides< Aec. 8". Offer of evidence. I The court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. The purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specified. +rom the foregoing provision, it is clear that for evidence to be considered, the same must be formally offered. Corollarily, the mere fact that a particular document is identified and marked as an e0hibit does not mean that it has already been offered as part of the evidence of a party. ,n Interpacific Transit, Inc. v. Aviles, 13 we had the occasion to make a distinction between identification of documentary evidence and its formal offer as an e0hibit. =e said that the first is done in the course of the trial and is accompanied by

Petitioners appealed to respondent Court of Appeals faulting the trial court:s factual findings. They contended that the trial court erred when it took cogniBance of the plaintiff:s evidence, particularly .0hibits ?+,? ?+$!,? ?+$7? and ?+$8?, which had been marked but never formally submitted in evidence as reCuired by the Rules of Court. ConseCuently, it was claimed that the trial court erred in relying on the said evidence in deciding for private respondents. 'n 9ecember !8, !**8, respondent court affirmed the decision of the trial court. 6 ,n sustaining the lower

the marking of the evidence as an e0hibit while the second is done only when the party rests its case and not before. A party, therefore, may opt to formally offer his evidence if he believes that it will advance his cause or not to do so at all. ,n the event he chooses to do the latter, the trial court is not authoriBed by the Rules to consider the same. >owever, in People v. Napat-a 11 citing People v. Mate, 12 we rela0ed the foregoing rule and allowed evidence not formally offered to be admitted and considered by the trial court provided the following reCuirements are present, viz.< first, the same must have been duly identified by testimony duly recorded and, second, the same must have been incorporated in the records of the case. ,n the case at bench, we find, as respondent court did, that these reCuisites have been satisfied. The evidence in Cuestion refers to .0hibits ?+,? receipt for P7,7").)) dated (anuary 7), !*#%@ ?+$!,? receipt for P#").)) dated +ebruary 78, !*#%, ?+$7,? receipt for P!,))).)) dated /arch 7), !*#%@ and ?+$8,? receipt for another P!,))).)) dated (uly 7*, !*#%, all showing the varying amounts paid by Leonor Taguba to .lvira /ato 1da. de '2ate. These e0hibits were marked at the pre$ trial for the purpose of identifying them. ,n fact, the payment of P",))).)) was admitted by herein petitioners in the same pre$trial. 'n /arch ", !*&5, .ulalia /arcita Taguba identified the said e0hibits in her testimony which was duly recorded. Ahe testified as follows< ATTH. LDC.R'< J ow, you said that the offer of P",))).)) selling price accepted by your sister and that she paid P7,7").)) on (anuary 7), !*#% 4.0hibit ?+?6 how about the balance on the considerationK A The amount of Aeven hundred fifty 4P#").))6 pesos to make it Three thousand 4P8,))).))6 pesos was paid on +ebruary 78, !*#% and the two 476 at

'ne thousand pesos 4P!,))).))6 were paid on /arch 7), !*#% and (uly 7*, !*#%, ma:am. C'DRT< =as that admitted by the other partyK ATTH. LDC.R'< /ay we put it on record that the amount of P#").)) was paid by /iss Leonor -. Taguba on +ebruary 78, !*#%, Hour >onor. C'DRT< +irst receipt is P7,7").)). 13 000 000 000 ATTH. LDC.R'< The receipt for the amount of Two Thousand two hundred fifty 4P7,7").))6 pesos be marked as .0hibit ?+?, Hour >onor. C'DRT< /ark it as .0hibit ?+.? 14 ATTH. LDC.R'< /ay we reCuest Hour >onor that the amount of #").)) receipt be marked as .0hibit ?+$!? dated +ebruary 78, !*#%@ .0hibit ?+$7? is the receipt for P!,))).)) paid on /arch 7), !*#%@ all in all, the amount is P",))).)) including .0hibit ?(? or rather .0hibit ?+$8? which is the amount of P!,))).)) and was paid apparently on (uly 7*, !*#% as partial payment for the parcel of land covered by TCT o. "!%# 4sic6,Hour >onor.

000 000 000 C'DRT< J =ill you look at .0hibit ?+8? and tell the Court if you know this .0hibit and why do you know thisK A This was the receipt prepared by my sister paid to .lvira /. 1da. de '2ate the amount of 'ne thousand 4P!,))).))6 pesos as the payment of the land she purchased. J =hy do you say that the same receipt was prepared by your late sister Leonor TagubaK A Hes ma:am because , was present when she made that receipt. 15 Likewise, e0tant from the records is the witness: e0planation of the contents of each of the said e0hibits. Also telling is petitioners: counsel vigorous cross$e0amination of the said witness who testified on the e0hibits in Cuestion. 16 >erein sub3ect e0hibits were also incorporated and made part of the records of this case. 11 +inally, petitioners: allegation that an action for specific performance cannot be availed of in this case because the parties did not agree on a fi0ed price is likewise devoid of merit. Private respondent:s evidence and testimony remain unrebutted that the contract price for the parcel of land in Cuestion is P",))).)). =>.R.+'R., finding no reversible error on the part of respondent court, the decision appealed from is hereby A++,R/.9 in toto. A' 'R9.R.9.

You might also like