Você está na página 1de 1

Arzadon v.

Arzadon (Short title) RULING & RATIO


GR # L-5095 | January 24, 1910 1. Yes.
Petitioner: Laureano Arzadon 1. The lawyer, together with the counsel for the adverse party, moving
Respondent: Clotilde Arzadon that his proof be admitted in the form in which it was made, in
(Rule 132, Section 4) order, as he now shows, to dispense cannot constitute a trial.
2. This is in violation of sections 132, 273, 274, and 381 of the Code
FACTS of Civil Procedure and Act No. 190.
1. Laureano Arzadon as administrator of the estate of Angco, o Of section 132 because it establishes the order of the trial
demands the surrender of rural properties held by Clotilde Arzadon which in this cause has been entirely done away with.
stating that the parcels were taken immediately after the death of o Of section 273, which governs the manner in which the
Angco, and retains them against the will of the heirs of the latter. evidence shall be considered.
2. At the trial, the attorneys, agreed to file their allegations in writing in o Of section 274, because it provides that the rules of
order that the trial court might render judgment at the hearing. evidence shall be the same in all courts, and upon every
3. The written documents are nothing more than certain papers trial, unless otherwise expressly provide by statute;
signed by the counsel of the contending parties, and containing o Of section 381, which prescribes that the testimony of all
averments seemingly made by various witnesses. witnesses, except such as has been taken in writing in the
4. At the bottom of that of Laureano signed by Attorney Jimenez, form of depositions as otherwise provided by law, shall be
appears: "The undersigned attorney rejects all and each one of the given on oath in open court orally.
immaterial proofs that the defendant may offer to the court, denies 3. The Supreme Court cannot even admit such documents for they do
under oath the presentation of documents lacking legal validity, the not constitute legal proof of any kind.
declarations that may be in conflict with those made by the 4. It is erroneous to say that it was the duty of the court below to
witnesses of the defendant, excepting therefrom in case of accept the agreements of the parties, not with respect to the
admission by the court, and, lastly, presents two documentary facts, but as to the manner of offering their respective proofs.
proofs." The order of trials is not personal matter between the parties,
5. On the other hand, that of Clotilde signed by Attorney Paredes one that they may ignore or renounce as if it only concerned
contains: "The defendants object to the documents which the them privately.
plaintiff has offered as evidence, for the reason that they are 5. The form of a trial is a matter of public order and interest.
immaterial, and in the event their objection is overruled they take
exception thereto." DISPOSITION
6. CFI dismissed the case ruling that the whole allegations of the A legal trial of the case must be held, and the judgment appealed from and
complaint have not been proven as required by law. all the proceedings, with the exception of the written allegations, are hereby
7. From the decision, Laureano appealed. set aside; a new trial is hereby ordered, to proceed form the time of the filling
. of the answer to the complaint, without any special ruling as to costs in this
ISSUE/S instance. So ordered.
1. W/N CFI erred in having admitted the agreement presented by counsel
in order to dispense with the trial of the case

PROVISION
Rule 132 Section 3. Order in the examination of an individual witness. —
The order in which the individual witness may be examined is as follows;
(a) Direct examination by the proponent;
(b) Cross-examination by the opponent;
(c) Re-direct examination by the proponent;
(d) Re-cross-examination by the opponent.