04 Tabuena Vs CA

TABUENA vs CA - Tabuena appealed to the CA complaining that, in arriving at its factual
findings, the RTC motu proprio took cognizance of Exhibits "A", "B"
FACTS: and "C", which had been marked by the plaintiff but never
formally submitted in evidence. The trial court also erred when, to
- The subject of the dispute is a parcel of residential land consisting of resolve the ownership of the subject lot, it considered the proceedings
about 440 square meters and situated in Poblacion, Makato, Aklan. in another case involving the same parties but a different parcel of
In 1973, an action for recovery of ownership thereof was filed in the land.
RTC of Aklan by the estate of Alfredo Tabernilla against Jose
Tabuena, the herein petitioner. After trial, judgment was rendered in - In sustaining the RTC, the CA held that, contrary to the allegations of
favor of the plaintiff and the defendant was required to vacate the
the appellant, the said exhibits were in fact formally submitted in
disputed lot.
evidence as disclosed by the transcript of stenographic notes, which
it quoted at length.
- As the trial court found, the lot was sold by Juan Peralta, Jr. sometime
in 1926 to Alfredo Tabernilla while the two were in the United States. ISSUE:
Tabernilla returned to the Philippines in 1934, and Damasa - W/N the CA erred in affirming the decision of the RTC
Timtiman, acting upon her son Juan's instruction, conveyed the
subject land to Tabernilla. At the same time, she requested that she HELD:
be allowed to stay thereon as she had been living there all her life.
Tabernilla agreed provided she paid the realty taxes on the property,
- YES.
which she promised to do, and did. She remained on the said land
The exhibits submitted were not the above-described documents but
until her death, following which the petitioner, her son and half-
Exhibits "X" and "T" and their sub-markings, which were the last will
brother of Juan Peralta, Jr., took possession thereof. The complaint
and testament of Alfredo Tabernilla and the order of probate. The trial
was filed when demand was made upon Tabuena to surrender the
court categorically declared that "Exhibits "A-1, "A-2", "B", "C"
property and he refused, claiming it as his own.
and "C-l," were not among those documents or exhibits formally
offered for admission by plaintiff-administratrix." This is a clear
- The RTC ruled against Tabuena and rejected his defense that he was contradiction of the finding of the appellate court, which seems to
the absolute owner of the lot, which he inherited from his parents, who have confused Exhibits "A," "B" and "C" with Exhibits "X" and "Y", the
acquired it even before World War II and had been living thereon evidence mentioned in the quoted transcript.
since then and until they died.
Rule 132 of the Rules of Court provides in Section 35 thereof as
follows: - The CA also held that the RTC committed no reversible error in taking
Sec. 35. Offer of evidence.—The court shall consider no evidence judicial notice of Tabuena's testimony in a case it had previously
which has not been formally offered. The purpose for which the heard which was closely connected with the case before it. The
evidence is offered must be specified. general rule is that "courts are not authorized to take judicial notice,
in the adjudication of cases pending before them, of the contents of
- The mere fact that a particular document is marked as an exhibit does the records of other cases, even when such cases have been tried or
not mean it has thereby already been offered as part of the evidence are pending in the same court, and notwithstanding the fact that both
of a party. It is true that Exhibits "A," "B" and "C" were marked at the cases may have been heard or are actually pending before the same
pre-trial of the case below, but this was only for the purpose of judge.
identifying them at that time. They were not by such marking formally
offered as exhibits. As we said in Interpacific Transit, Inc. vs. Aviles, - Nevertheless, there is an exception, but it would only apply when, "in
"At the trial on the merits, the party may decide to formally offer the absence of objection," "with the knowledge of the opposing
(the exhibits) if it believes they will advance its cause, and then party," or "at the request or with the consent of the parties," the
again it may decide not to do so at all. In the latter event, such case is clearly referred to or "the original or part of the records
documents cannot be considered evidence, nor can they be of the case are actually withdrawn from the archives" and
given any evidentiary value.” "admitted as part of the record of the case then pending." These
conditions have not been established here. On the contrary, the
- We did say in People vs. Napat-a that even if there be no formal offer petitioner was completely unaware that his testimony in Civil Case
of an exhibit, it may still be admitted against the adverse party if, first, No. 1327 was being considered by the trial court in the case then
it has been duly identified by testimony duly recorded and, pending before it.
second, it has itself been incorporated in the records of the case.
But we do not find that these requirements have been satisfied in the - WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The appealed decision is
case before us. The RTC said the said exhibits could be validly REVERSED and SET ASIDE, with costs against the private
considered because, even if they had not been formally offered, one respondent.
of the plaintiffs witnesses, Cunegunda Hernandez, testified on them
at the trial and was even cross-examined by the defendant's counsel.
We do not agree. Although she did testify, all she did was identify
the documents. Nowhere in her testimony can we find a recital
of the contents of the exhibits.

04 Tabuena Vs CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

04 Tabuena Vs CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

04 Tabuena Vs CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TABUENA vs CA - Tabuena appealed to the CA complaining that, in arriving at its factual

You might also like