Heirs of Pedro Pasag vs. Parocha: 08/05/2019, 11 25 AM Supreme Court Reports Annotated Volume 522

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 522 08/05/2019, 11*25 AM
410 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Heirs of Pedro Pasag vs. Parocha
*
G.R. No. 155483. April 27, 2007.
HEIRS OF PEDRO PASAG, represented by EUFREMIO

PASAG; HEIRS OF MARIA PASAG, represented by
EPIFANIA LUMAGUI; HEIRS OF JUANITA PASAG,
represented by ASUNCION ORTIOLA; HEIRS OF ISIDRO
PASAG, represented by VIRGINIA P. MENDOZA; HEIRS
OF BASILIO PASAG, represented by MILAGROSA P.
NABOR; and HEIRS OF FORTUNATA PASAG,
represented by FLORENTINA S. MEMBRERE, petitioners,
vs. Sps. LORENZO and FLORENTINA PAROCHA,
PRISCILLA P. ABELLERA, and MARIA VILORIA PASAG,
respondents.
Civil Procedure; Evidence; Formal Offer; Formal offer of

evidence is necessary because judges are mandated to rest their
findings of facts and their judgment only and strictly upon the
evidence offered by the parties at the trial.·The Rules of Court
provides that „the court shall consider no evidence which has not
been formally offered.‰ A formal offer is necessary because judges
are mandated to rest their findings of facts and their judgment only
and strictly upon the evidence offered by the parties at the trial. Its
function is to enable the trial judge to know the purpose or purposes
for which the proponent is presenting the evidence. On the other
hand, this allows opposing parties to examine the evidence and
object to its admissibility. Moreover, it facilitates review as the
appellate court will not be required to review documents not
previously scrutinized by the trial court.
Same; Same; Same; The formal offer of oneÊs evidence is deemed

waived after failing to submit it within a considerable period of
time.·Strict adherence to the said rule is not a trivial matter. The
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016a95774b2b61c85f83003600fb002c009e/p/AQF806/?username=Guest Page 1 of 16
Court in Constantino v. Court of Appeals, 264 SCRA 59 (1996), ruled

that the formal offer of oneÊs evidence is deemed waived after failing
to submit it within a considerable period of time. It explained that
the court cannot admit an offer of evidence made after a lapse of
three (3) months because to do so would „condone an inexcusable
laxity if not non-compliance with a court order which, in effect,
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
411
VOL. 522, APRIL 27, 2007 411
would encourage needless delays and derail the speedy

administration of justice.‰
Same; Same; Same; The party who terminated the presentation

of evidence must make an oral offer of evidence on the very day the
party presented the last witness.·The pre-trial guidelines and Sec.
35 of Rule 132 jointly considered, it is made clear that the party
who terminated the presentation of evidence must make an oral
offer of evidence on the very day the party presented the last
witness. Otherwise, the court may consider the partyÊs documentary
or object evidence waived. While Sec. 35 of Rule 132 says that the
trial court may allow the offer to be done in writing, this can only be
tolerated in extreme cases where the object evidence or documents
are large in number––say from 100 and above, and only where
there is unusual difficulty in preparing the offer.
Same; Same; Same; Documents which may have been identified

and marked as exhibits during pre-trial or trial but which were not
formally offered in evidence cannot in any manner be treated as
evidence.·The trial court is bound to consider only the testimonial
evidence presented and exclude the documents not offered.
Documents which may have been identified and marked as exhibits
during pre-trial or trial but which were not formally offered in

evidence cannot in any manner be treated as evidence. Neither can
such unrecognized proof be assigned any evidentiary weight and
value. It must be stressed that there is a significant distinction
between identification of documentary evidence and its formal offer.
The former is done in the course of the pre-trial, and trial is
accompanied by the marking of the evidence as an exhibit; while
the latter is done only when the party rests its case. The mere fact
that a particular document is identified and marked as an exhibit
does not mean that it has already been offered as part of the
evidence. It must be emphasized that any evidence which a party
desires to submit for the consideration of the court must formally be
offered by the party; otherwise, it is excluded and rejected.
Same; Same; Demurrer to Evidence; A demurrer to evidence is

an instrument for the expeditious termination of an action thus,
abbreviating judicial proceedings; In passing upon the sufficiency of
the evidence raised in a demurrer, the court is merely required to
ascertain whether there is competent or sufficient proof to sustain the
412
indictment or to support a verdict of guilt.·A demurrer to evidence

is an instrument for the expeditious termination of an action; thus,
abbreviating judicial proceedings. It is defined as „an objection or
exception by one of the parties in an action at law, to the effect that
the evidence which his adversary produced is insufficient in point of
law (whether true or not) to make out his case or sustain the issue.‰
The demurrer challenges the sufficiency of the plaintiff Ês evidence
to sustain a verdict. In passing upon the sufficiency of the evidence
raised in a demurrer, the court is merely required to ascertain
whether there is competent or sufficient proof to sustain the
indictment or to support a verdict of guilt.
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Felipe V. Abenojar for petitioners.

David Briones for respondents.
VELASCO, JR., J.:
The rule on formal offer of evidence is not a trivial matter.

Failure to make a formal offer within a considerable period
of time shall be deemed a waiver to submit it.
Consequently, as in this case, any evidence that has not
been offered shall be excluded and rejected.
The Case
The present Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule1

45 seeks the annulment of the February 15, 2002 Decision
of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R.
2
CV No. 68544, and
its September 6, 2002 Resolution denying petitionersÊ
Motion for
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 23-31. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice

Delilah Vidallon-Magtolis and concurred in by Associate Justices
Candido Rivera and Juan Enriquez, Jr.
2 Id., at p. 33.
413
VOL. 522, APRIL 27, 2007 413

Reconsideration. In effect, petitioners entreat this Court to

nullify the February 24, 2000 Resolution of the Urdaneta
City Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 45 in Civil Case
No. U5743, granting the demurrer to evidence filed by
respondents and dismissing their Complaint, which ruling
was upheld by the CA.
The Facts
The instant case arose from a Complaint for Declaration of
Nullity of Documents and Titles, Recovery of Possession

and Ownership, Reconveyance, Partition and Damages
filed by petitioners at the Urdaneta City RTC of
Pangasinan against respondents. Petitioners alleged a
share over three (3) properties owned by respondents,
which formed part of the estate of petitionersÊ deceased
grandparents, Benito and Florentina Pasag. They averred
that Benito and Florentina Pasag died intestate, thus,
leaving behind all their properties to their eight (8)
children––Pedro, Isidro, Basilio, Severino, Bonifacio,
Maria, Juanita, and Fortunata. However, Severino, the
predecessor of respondents, claimed in an affidavit of
selfadjudication that he is the sole, legal, and compulsory
heir of Benito and Florentina Pasag. Consequently, he was
able to appropriate to himself the properties covered by
Original Certificates of Title (OCT) Nos. 2983 and 1887.
Thereafter, Severino executed a deed of absolute sale over
the said properties in favor of his daughter, respondent
Florentina Parocha. Moreover, petitioners alleged that
Severino used the same affidavit of self-adjudication to
secure a free patent over an agricultural land that had long
been under the possession of Benito and Florentina Pasag.
In denying the material allegations in the Complaint,
respondents averred in their Answer that the properties
left behind by the spouses Benito and Florentina Pasag had
already been partitioned among their eight (8) surviving
children. They claimed that the parcels of land covered by
OCT Nos. 2983 and 1887 are BonifacioÊs share of which he
later on
414

renounced in a Quitclaim Deed in favor of his brother,

Severino. As regards the parcel of land covered by OCT No.
P20607, respondents asserted that the said land had been
in SeverinoÊs possession and occupation since 1940, thus,
giving him the right to apply for and be granted a free
patent over it. Having complied with the requirements of
law, SeverinoÊs title had now become indefeasible.
The trial of the case commenced on March 19, 1996. On

March 9, 1999, petitioners rested their case and were
granted ten (10) days within which to submit their formal
offer of documentary exhibits. However, petitioners failed
to submit the said pleading within the required period.
On April 19, 1999, petitioners asked the trial court to
give them until May 11, 1999 to submit their offer of
evidence; and it subsequently granted their motion.
However, on May 11, 1999, they again failed to submit
their offer of evidence and moved for another extension of
five (5) days.
Unfortunately, petitioners still failed to submit their
formal offer of evidence within the extended 3
period.
Consequently, in its June 17, 1999 Order, the trial court
deemed waived petitionersÊ right to make their formal offer
of evidence.
On July 27, 1999, petitioners moved for the admission of
their offer of evidence. On September
4
1, 1999, however, the
trial court issued an Order denying petitionersÊ 5
formal
offer of evidence for their „consistent failure‰ to submit it.
On October 28, 1999, respondents filed a Motion to
Dismiss on Demurrer to Evidence. 6
On February 24, 2000, in its Resolution, the trial court
granted respondentsÊ demurrer to evidence and ordered the
_______________
3 Records, p. 167.
4 Id., at pp. 188-190.
5 Id., at p. 189.
6 Id., at pp. 211-216.
415
VOL. 522, APRIL 27, 2007 415

dismissal of the Complaint. PetitionersÊ Motion for

Reconsideration was denied for lack of merit.
Petitioners appealed the case to the CA.
The Ruling of the Court of Appeals
Affirming the ruling of the trial court, the CA held that

petitioners failed to prove their claim by a preponderance
of evidence. It observed that „no concrete7 and substantial
evidence was adduced by [petitioners]‰ to substantiate
their allegation that Severino, the predecessor of
respondents, fraudulently executed an affidavit of self-
adjudication in order to exclude petitioners from the
settlement of the estate of Benito and Florentina Pasag.
The Issues
Petitioners submit the following issues for our

consideration:
I.
The Hon. Court of Appeals committed reversible error in affirming

the Decision of the Court a quo despite the gross negligence of their
counsel thus depriving their rights to due process.
II.
The Court of Appeals committed reversible error in affirming the

Decision of the trial court instead of remanding the case for further
proceedings to clearly establish their respective claims on the
8
subject properties.
Simply stated, the issues revolve on the propriety of the

following: (1) waiver of petitionersÊ offer of documentary
evidence; and (2) dismissal of the Complaint on a demurrer
to evidence.
_______________
7 Supra note 1, at p. 30.

8 Rollo, p. 18; original in boldface.
416
The CourtÊs Ruling
The petition has no merit.
Waiver of the Offer of Evidence
The Rules of Court provides that „the court shall9 consider

no evidence which has not been formally offered.‰ A formal
offer is necessary because judges are mandated to rest their
findings of facts and their judgment only and strictly 10upon
the evidence offered by the parties at the trial. Its
function is to enable the trial judge to know the purpose or
purposes 11 for which the proponent is presenting the
evidence. On the other hand, this allows opposing parties
to examine the evidence and object to its admissibility.
Moreover, it facilitates review as the appellate court will
not be required to review12 documents not previously
scrutinized by the trial court.
Strict adherence to the said rule is not a trivial
13
matter.
The Court in Constantino v. Court of Appeals ruled that
the formal offer of oneÊs evidence is deemed waived after
failing to submit it within a considerable period of time. It
explained that the court cannot admit an offer of evidence
made after a lapse of three (3) months because to do so
would „condone an inexcusable laxity if not non-compliance
with a court order which, in effect, would encourage
needless14 delays and derail the speedy administration of
justice.‰
_______________
9 Rule 132, Sec. 34.

10 Parel v. Prudencio, G.R. No. 146556, April 19, 2006, 487 SCRA 405;
Katigbak v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 140183, July 10, 2003, 405 SCRA
558; Ong v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 117103, January 21, 1999, 301
SCRA 387.
11 People v. Alicante, G.R. Nos. 127026-27, May 31, 2000, 332 SCRA
440.
12 Ong v. Court of Appeals, supra.
13 G.R. No. 116018, November 13, 1996, 264 SCRA 59.

14 Id., at p. 65.
417
VOL. 522, APRIL 27, 2007 417

Applying the aforementioned principle in this case, we find

that the trial court had reasonable ground to consider that
petitioners had waived their right to make a formal offer of
documentary or object evidence. Despite several extensions
of time to make their formal offer, petitioners failed to
comply with their commitment and allowed almost five
months to lapse before finally submitting it. PetitionersÊ
failure to comply with the rule on admissibility of evidence
is anathema to the efficient, effective, and expeditious
dispensation of justice. Under the Rule on guidelines to be
observed by trial court judges and clerks of court in the
conduct of15 pre-trial and case of deposition and discovery
measures, it is provided that:
On the last hearing day allotted for each party, he is required to

make his formal offer of evidence after the presentation of his last
witness and the opposing party is required to immediately interpose
his objection thereto. Thereafter the judge shall make the ruling on
the offer of evidence in open court. However, the judge has the
discretion to allow the offer of evidence in writing in conformity
with Section 35, Rule 132[.]
On the other hand, Section 35 of Rule 132 of the Rules of

Court provides that „documentary and object evidence shall
be offered after the presentation of a partyÊs testimonial
evidence.‰ It requires that „such offer shall be done orally
unless allowed by the Court to be done in writing.‰
The pre-trial guidelines and Sec. 35 of Rule 132 jointly
considered, it is made clear that the party who terminated
the presentation of evidence must make an oral offer of
evidence on the very day the party presented the last
witness. Otherwise, the court may consider the partyÊs
documentary or object evidence waived. While Sec. 35 of
Rule 132 says that the trial court may allow the offer to be
done in writing, this can only be tolerated in extreme cases

where the object evidence or documents are large in
number––say from 100 and above,
_______________
15 June 8, 2004 En Banc Resolution in A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC.
418

and only where there is unusual difficulty in preparing the

offer.
The party asking for such concession should however file
a motion, pay the filing fee, set the date of the hearing
16
not
later than 10 days after the filing of the motion, and serve
it on the address
17
of the party at least three (3) days before
the hearing. In short, it is a litigated motion and cannot
be done ex parte. Counsels for parties should not however
rely on the benevolence of the trial court as they are
expected to have thoroughly and exhaustively prepared for
all possible pieces of evidence to be presented and the
purposes for which they will be utilized. As a matter of fact,
the draft of the offer of evidence can already be prepared
after the pre-trial order is issued, for, then, the counsel is
already fully aware of the documentary or object evidence
which can be put to use during trial. Remember that under
the pre-trial guidelines, the trial court is ordered to
integrate in the pre-trial order the following directive:
„No evidence shall be allowed to be presented and offered during

the trial in support of a partyÊs evidence-in-chief other than those
that had been identified below and pre-marked during the pre-trial.
Any other evidence not indicated or listed below shall be considered
waived by the parties. However, the Court, in its discretion, may
allow introduction of additional evidence in the following cases: (a)
those to be used on cross-examination or re-cross-examination for
impeachment purposes; (b) those presented on re-direct
examination to explain or supplement the answers of a witness
during the crossexamination; (c) those to be utilized for rebuttal or
sur-rebuttal purposes; and (d) those not available during the pre-
trial proceedings despite due diligence on the part of the party
18
offering the same.‰
_______________
16 RULES OF COURT, Rule 15, Sec. 5.

17 Id., at Sec. 4.
18 Supra note 15.
419
VOL. 522, APRIL 27, 2007 419

It is apparent from the foregoing provision that both

parties should obtain, gather, collate, and list all their
respective pieces of evidence––whether testimonial,
documentary, or object––even prior to the preliminary
conference before the clerk of court or at the latest before
the scheduled pre-trial conference. Otherwise, pieces of
evidence not identified or marked during the pre-trial
proceedings are deemed waived and rendered inutile. The
parties should strictly adhere to the principle of „laying
oneÊs cards on the table.‰ In the light of these issuances and
in order to obviate interminable delay in case processing,
the parties and lawyers should closely conform to the
requirement that the offer of evidence must be done orally
on the day scheduled for the presentation of the last
witness.
Thus, the trial court is bound to consider only the
testimonial evidence presented and exclude the documents
not offered. Documents which may have been identified
and marked as exhibits during pre-trial or trial but which
were not formally offered in evidence cannot in any manner
be treated as evidence. Neither can such unrecognized
proof be assigned any evidentiary weight and value. It
must be stressed that there is a significant distinction
between identification of documentary evidence and its
formal offer. The former is done in the course of the pre-
trial, and trial is accompanied by the marking of the
evidence as an exhibit; while the latter is done only when
19
the party rests its case. The mere fact that a particular
document is identified and marked as an exhibit does not
mean that20
it has already been offered as part of the
evidence. It must be emphasized that any evidence which
a party desires to submit for the consid-
_______________
19 People v. Franco, G.R. No. 118607, March 4, 1997, 269 SCRA 211.
20 Republic v. Wee, G.R. No. 147212, March 24, 2006, 485 SCRA 308;
Villaluz v. Ligon, G.R. No. 143721, August 31, 2005, 468 SCRA 486;
Macasiray v. People, G.R. No. 94736, June 26, 1998, 291 SCRA 154.
420

eration of the court must formally be21offered by the party;

otherwise, it is excluded and rejected.
Dismissal of the Complaint on a Demurrer to Evidence
Having established that the documentary evidence of

petitioners is inadmissible, this Court is now tasked to
determine the propriety of the dismissal of the Complaint
on a demurrer to evidence.
A demurrer to evidence is an 22instrument for the
expeditious termination
23
of an action; thus, abbreviating
judicial proceedings. It is defined as „an objection or
exception by one of the parties in an action at law, to the
effect that the evidence which his adversary produced is
insufficient in point of law (whether true24
or not) to make
out his case or sustain the issue.‰ The demurrer
challenges the sufficiency
25
of the plaintiff Ês evidence to
sustain a verdict. In passing upon the sufficiency of the
evidence raised in a demurrer, the court is merely required
to ascertain whether there is competent or sufficient proof 26
to sustain the indictment or to support a verdict of guilt.
_______________
21 Landingin v. Republic, G.R. No. 164948, June 27, 2006, 493 SCRA
415; Pigao v. Rabanillo, G.R. No. 150712, May 2, 2006, 488 SCRA 546;
Katigbak v. Sandiganbayan, supra note 10.
22 Sec. 1 of Rule 33 of the Rules of Court provides: [A]fter the plaintiff
has completed the presentation of his evidence, the defendant may move
for dismissal on the ground that upon the facts and the law the plaintiff
has shown no right to relief. x x x
23 Consolidated Bank and Trust Corporation (SOLIDBANK) v. Del
Monte Motor Works, Inc., G.R. No. 143338, July 29, 2005, 465 SCRA 117.
24 H. Black, BLACKÊS LAW DICTIONARY 433 (6th ed., 1990).
25 Ong v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 140904, October 9, 2000, 342
SCRA 372; Gutib v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 131209, August 13, 1999,
312 SCRA 365.
26 Id.
421
VOL. 522, APRIL 27, 2007 421

In the present case, we have thoroughly reviewed the

records and are convinced that petitioners have failed to
sufficiently prove their allegations. It is a basic rule in
evidence that the burden 27
of proof lies on the party who
makes the allegations. However, petitioners did not
substantiate their allegations and merely argued that the
Complaint should be „threshed out in a full blown trial in
order to establish their respective positions 28
on issues
[which are] a matter of judicial appreciation.‰
Regardless of the bare argument of petitioners, however,
we find that the trial and appellate courts were correct in
dismissing the Complaint. The allegation that Severino
fraudulently excluded the other heirs of Benito and
Florentina Pasag in the settlement of the latterÊs estate
was not supported by concrete evidence. While petitioners
maintain that the estate of Benito and Florentina was
never partitioned among their heirs, the testimony of their
witness, Eufemio Pasag, proves otherwise. Significantly,
during crossexamination, Eufemio admitted that the
children of Benito and Florentina, including the father of
petitioners, had received properties as inheritance from the
said spouses. He testified, thus:
Q Are you aware that there are eight (8) children of the
spouses Benito and Faustina Pasag?
A Yes, sir.
Q And one of whom is Bonifacio Pasag?
A Yes, sir.
_______________
27 Acabal v. Acabal, G.R. No. 148376, March 31, 2005, 454 SCRA 555;
Saguid v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 150611, June 10, 2003, 403 SCRA
678; Pimentel v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 117422, May 12, 1999, 307
SCRA 38; Luxuria Homes, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125986,
January 28, 1999, 302 SCRA 315.
28 Rollo, p. 59; petitionersÊ Memorandum.
422

Q And one of whom is Severino Pasag?

A Yes, sir.
Q Are you likewise aware, Mr. Witness, that after the
death of the spouses Benito and Faustina Pasag, there
was no last will and testament?
A Yes, sir.
Q And of course, you are aware that there are properties
left by the said spouses, is that right?
A Yes, sir.
Q And in fact, your father Pedro Pasag has already a title
in his name of the properties left by the spouses to
Pedro Pasag, is that right?
A Yes, sir.
Q And in fact, it is where your house was situated or
erected among those properties that was given to your
father, is that right?
A Yes, sir.
Q And of course you are aware that likewise Severino

Pasag, after the death of the spouses Benito and
Faustina Pasag, acquired some properties as
inheritance, is that right?
A Yes, sir.
xxxx
Q And you also agree with me that Isidro Pasag, Juanito
Bustillo, Fortunata Savellano, Basilio Pasag, and
Maria Lumague and the other brothers and sisters of
your fat her likewise received property of their own as a
result of the death of your grandfather, is that right?
29
A Yes, sir.
_______________
29 TSN, March 9, 1999, pp. 5-7.
423
VOL. 522, APRIL 27, 2007 423

It must be stressed that fraud is not presumed; 30

and it must
be proved by clear and convincing 31
evidence, and not by
mere conjectures or speculations. No such evidence was
presented in this case to sustain petitionersÊ allegations.
WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition and AFFIRM the
assailed February 15, 2002 Decision and September 6, 2002
Resolution of the CA, with costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
Quisumbing (Chairperson), Carpio, Carpio-Morales

and Tinga, JJ., concur.
Petition denied, assailed decision and resolution

affirmed.
Note.·Neither the rules of procedure nor jurisprudence

would sanction the admission of evidence that has not been
formally offered during the trial. But this evidentiary rule
is applicable only to ordinary trials not to cases covered by
the rule on summary procedure·cases in which no full

blown trial is held. (Heirs of Lourdes Saez Sabanpan vs.
Comorposa, 408 SCRA 692 [2003])
··o0o··
_______________
30 Morandarte v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 123586, August 12, 2004,

436 SCRA 213; Maestrado v. Roa, G.R. No. 133324, March 9, 2000, 327
SCRA 678; Mangahas v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 95815, March 10,
1999, 304 SCRA 375; Sanchez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 108947,
September 29, 1997, 279 SCRA 647.
31 Sanchez v. Court of Appeals, supra.
424
© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Heirs of Pedro Pasag vs. Parocha: 08/05/2019, 11 25 AM Supreme Court Reports Annotated Volume 522

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Heirs of Pedro Pasag vs. Parocha: 08/05/2019, 11 25 AM Supreme Court Reports Annotated Volume 522

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 522 08/05/2019, 11*25 AM

410 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

HEIRS OF PEDRO PASAG, represented by EUFREMIO

Civil Procedure; Evidence; Formal Offer; Formal offer of

Same; Same; Same; The formal offer of oneÊs evidence is deemed

Court in Constantino v. Court of Appeals, 264 SCRA 59 (1996), ruled

VOL. 522, APRIL 27, 2007 411

Heirs of Pedro Pasag vs. Parocha

would encourage needless delays and derail the speedy

Same; Same; Same; The party who terminated the presentation

Same; Same; Same; Documents which may have been identified

during pre-trial or trial but which were not formally offered in

Same; Same; Demurrer to Evidence; A demurrer to evidence is

412 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Heirs of Pedro Pasag vs. Parocha

indictment or to support a verdict of guilt.·A demurrer to evidence

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

Felipe V. Abenojar for petitioners.

VELASCO, JR., J.:

The rule on formal offer of evidence is not a trivial matter.

The present Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule1

1 Rollo, pp. 23-31. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice

VOL. 522, APRIL 27, 2007 413

Reconsideration. In effect, petitioners entreat this Court to

The instant case arose from a Complaint for Declaration of

Nullity of Documents and Titles, Recovery of Possession

414 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

renounced in a Quitclaim Deed in favor of his brother,

The trial of the case commenced on March 19, 1996. On

VOL. 522, APRIL 27, 2007 415

dismissal of the Complaint. PetitionersÊ Motion for

The Ruling of the Court of Appeals

Affirming the ruling of the trial court, the CA held that

Petitioners submit the following issues for our

The Hon. Court of Appeals committed reversible error in affirming

The Court of Appeals committed reversible error in affirming the

Simply stated, the issues revolve on the propriety of the

7 Supra note 1, at p. 30.

416 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Heirs of Pedro Pasag vs. Parocha

The CourtÊs Ruling

The petition has no merit.

Waiver of the Offer of Evidence

The Rules of Court provides that „the court shall9 consider

9 Rule 132, Sec. 34.

13 G.R. No. 116018, November 13, 1996, 264 SCRA 59.

VOL. 522, APRIL 27, 2007 417

Applying the aforementioned principle in this case, we find

On the last hearing day allotted for each party, he is required to

On the other hand, Section 35 of Rule 132 of the Rules of

done in writing, this can only be tolerated in extreme cases

15 June 8, 2004 En Banc Resolution in A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC.

418 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

and only where there is unusual difficulty in preparing the

„No evidence shall be allowed to be presented and offered during

16 RULES OF COURT, Rule 15, Sec. 5.

VOL. 522, APRIL 27, 2007 419

It is apparent from the foregoing provision that both

420 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

eration of the court must formally be21offered by the party;

Dismissal of the Complaint on a Demurrer to Evidence

Having established that the documentary evidence of

VOL. 522, APRIL 27, 2007 421