lawphil Today is Thursday, November 21, 2013

Republic of the Philippines S PR!"! #$ RT "anila %&RST '&(&S&$N

)*R* No* +,-23

"ay ., 1//1

0$S! T12 !N1, petitioner, vs* #$ RT $% 1PP!13S and !"&3&1N$ T12!RN&331, 0R*, respondents* Ramon 'imen for petitioner* 'ionisio 1* 4ernande5 for private respondent*

#R 6, 0*7p The petitioner faults the decision of the trial court, as affirmed by the respondent court, for lac8 of basis* &t is ar9ued that the lower courts should not have ta8en into account evidence not submitted by the private respondent in accordance with the Rules of #ourt* The sub:ect of the dispute is a parcel of residential land consistin9 of about --0 s;uare meters and situated in Poblacion, "a8ato, 18lan* &n 1/<3, an action for recovery of ownership thereof was filed in the Re9ional Trial #ourt of 18lan by the estate of 1lfredo Tabernilla a9ainst 0ose Tabuena, the herein petitioner* 1fter trial, :ud9ment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff and the defendant was re;uired to vacate the disputed lot* 1 1s the trial court found, the lot was sold by 0uan Peralta, 0r* sometime in 1/2. to 1lfredo Tabernilla while the two were in the nited States* Tabernilla returned to the Philippines in 1/3-, and 'amasa Timtiman, actin9 upon her son 0uan=s instruction, conveyed the sub:ect land to Tabernilla* 1t the same time, she re;uested that she be allowed to stay thereon as she had been livin9 there all her life* Tabernilla a9reed provided she paid the realty ta>es on the property, which she promised to do, and did* She remained on the said land until her death, followin9 which the

petitioner, her son and half?brother of 0uan Peralta, 0r*, too8 possession thereof* The complaint was filed when demand was made upon Tabuena to surrender the property and he refused, claimin9 it as his own* The trial court re:ected his defense that he was the absolute owner of the lot, which he inherited from his parents, who ac;uired it even before @orld @ar && and had been livin9 thereon since then and until they died* 1lso disbelieved was his contention that the sub:ect of the sale between Peralta and Tabernilla was a different piece of land planted to coconut trees and bounded on three sides by the "a8ato River* Tabuena appealed to the respondent court, complainin9 that, in arrivin9 at its factual findin9s, the trial court motu proprio too8 co9ni5ance of !>hibits A1A, A2A and A#A, which had been mar8ed by the plaintiff but never formally submitted in evidence* The trial court also erred when, to resolve the ownership of the sub:ect lot, it considered the proceedin9s in another case involvin9 the same parties but a different parcel of land* The said e>hibits are referred to in the pre?trial order as follows7 Plaintiff proceeded to mar8 the followin9 e>hibits7 !>h* A1A, letter dated $ctober -, 1/21 addressed in "a8ato, #api5, PhilippinesB !>h* A1?1A, para9raph 2 of the letter indicatin9 that the amount of P.00*00the first P300*00 and then another P300*00 as interest since $ctober -, 1/21B !>h* A1?2A, is para9raph 3 of the letterB !>h* A2A, a Spanish documentB !>h* A#A, deed of conveyance filed by Tomasa Timtiman and 1lfredo Tabernilla in 1/23B and !>h* A#?1A, para9raph - of !>h* A#A* &n sustainin9 the trial court, the respondent court held that, contrary to the alle9ations of the appellant, the said e>hibits were in fact formally submitted in evidence as disclosed by the transcript of steno9raphic notes, which it ;uoted at len9th* 2 The challen9ed decision also upheld the use by the trial court of testimony 9iven in an earlier case, to bolster its findin9s in the second case* @e have e>amined the record and find that the e>hibits submitted were not the above?described documents but !>hibits ACA and ATA and their sub?mar8in9s, which were the last will and testament of 1lfredo Tabernilla and the order of probate* &t is not at all denied that the list of e>hibits does not include !>hibits A1A, A2A and A#A* &n fact, the trial court cate9orically declared that A!>hibits A1?1, A1?2A, A2A, A#A and A#?l,A were not amon9 those documents or e>hibits formally offered for admission by plaintiff?administratri>*A This is a clear contradiction of the findin9 of the appellate court, which seems to have confused !>hibits A1,A A2A and A#A with !>hibits ACA and ADA, the evidence mentioned in the ;uoted transcript* Rule 132 of the Rules of #ourt provides in Section 3, thereof as follows7 Sec* 3,* $ffer of evidence* The court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered* The purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specified*

The mere fact that a particular document is mar8ed as an e>hibit does not mean it has thereby already been offered as part of the evidence of a party* &t is true that !>hibits A1,A A2A and A#A were mar8ed at the pre?trial of the case below, but this was only for the purpose of identifyin9 them at that time* They were not by such mar8in9 formally offered as e>hibits* 1s we said in &nterpacific Transit, &nc* vs* 1viles, 3 A1t the trial on the merits, the party may decide to formally offer Ethe e>hibitsF if it believes they will advance its cause, and then a9ain it may decide not to do so at all* &n the latter event, such documents cannot be considered evidence, nor can they be 9iven any evidentiary value*A #hief 0ustice "oran e>plained the rationale of the rule thus7 * * * The offer is necessary because it is the duty of a :ud9e to rest his findin9s of facts and his :ud9ment only and strictly upon the evidence offered by the patties at the trial* @e did say in People vs* Napat?a , that even if there be no formal offer of an e>hibit, it may still be admitted a9ainst the adverse party if, first, it has been duly identified by testimony duly recorded and, second, it has itself been incorporated in the records of the case* 2ut we do not find that these re;uirements have been satisfied in the case before us* The trial court said the said e>hibits could be validly considered because, even if they had not been formally offered, one of the plaintiffs witnesses, #une9unda 4ernande5, testified on them at the trial and was even cross? e>amined by the defendant=s counsel* @e do not a9ree* 1lthou9h she did testify, all she did was identify the documents* Nowhere in her testimony can we find a recital of the contents of the e>hibits* Thus, her interro9ation on !>hibit A1A ran7 3!)1SP&7 1 That is this !>h* A1A about G

The translation of the letter*

H @hat is the content of this !>h* A1A, the letter of the sister of 0uan Peralta to 1lfredo TabernillaG #ourt7 The best evidence is the document* Proceed* .

She also did not e>plain the contents of the other two e>hibits* The respondent court also held that the trial court committed no reversible error in ta8in9 :udicial notice of Tabuena=s testimony in a case it had previously heard which was closely connected with the case before it* &t conceded that as a 9eneral rule Acourts are not authori5ed to ta8e :udicial notice, in the ad:udication of cases pendin9 before them, of the contents of the records of other cases, even when such cases have been tried or are pendin9 in the same court, and notwithstandin9 the fact that both cases may have been heard or are actually pendin9 b before the same :ud9e* <

Nevertheless, it applied the e>ception that7 * * * in the absence of ob:ection, and as a matter of convenience to all parties, a court may properly treat all or any part of the ori9inal record of a case filed in its archives as read into the record of a case pendin9 before it, when, with the 8nowled9e of the opposin9 party, reference is made to it for that purpose, by name and number or in some other manner by which it is sufficiently desi9natedB or when the ori9inal record of the former case or any part of it, is actually withdrawn from the archives by the court=s direction, at the re;uest or with the consent of the parties, and admitted as a part of the record of the case then pendin9* + &t is clear, thou9h, that this e>ception is applicable only when, Ain the absence of ob:ection,A Awith the 8nowled9e of the opposin9 party,A or Aat the re;uest or with the consent of the parties,A the case is clearly referred to or Athe ori9inal or part of the records of the case are actually withdrawn from the archivesA and Aadmitted as part of the record of the case then pendin9*A These conditions have not been established here* $n the contrary, the petitioner was completely unaware that his testimony in #ivil #ase No* 132< was bein9 considered by the trial court in the case then pendin9 before it* 1s the petitioner puts it, the matter was never ta8en up at the trial and was Aunfairly sprun9A upon him, leavin9 him no opportunity to counteract* The respondent court said that even assumin9 that the trial court improperly too8 :udicial notice of the other case, stri8in9 off all reference thereto would not be fatal to the plaintiff=s cause because Athe said testimony was merely corroborative of other evidences submitted by the plaintiff*A @hat Aother evidencesAG The trouble with this :ustification is that the e>hibits it intends to corroborate, to wit, !>hibits A1A, A2A and A#A, have themselves not been formally submitted* #onsiderin9 the resultant paucity of the evidence for the private respondent, we feel that the complaint should have been dismissed by the trial court for failure of the plaintiff to substantiate its alle9ations* &t has failed to prove that the sub:ect lot was the same parcel of land sold by 0uan Peralta, 0r* to 1lfredo Tabernilla and not another property, as the petitioner contends* !ven assumin9 it was the same lot, there is no e>planation for the sale thereof by 0uan Peralta, 0r*, who was only the son of 'amasa Timtiman* 1ccordin9 to the trial court, Athere is no ;uestion that before 1/3- the land in ;uestion belon9ed to 'amasa Timtiman*A 0uan Peralta, 0r* could not have validly conveyed title to property that did not belon9 to him unless he had appropriate authori5ation from the owner* No such authori5ation has been presented* &t is true that ta> declarations are not conclusive evidence of ownership, as we have held in many cases* 4owever, that rule is also not absolute and yields to the accepted and well?8nown e>ception* &n the case at bar, it is not even disputed that the petitioner and his predecessors?in? interest have possessed the disputed property since even before @orld @ar &&* &n li9ht of this uncontroverted fact, the ta> declarations in their name become wei9hty and compellin9 evidence of the petitioner=s ownership* 1s this #ourt has held7 @hile it is true that by themselves ta> receipts and declarations of ownership for ta>ation purposes are not incontrovertible evidence of ownership they become stron9 evidence of ownership

ac;uired by prescription when accompanied by proof of actual possession of the property* / &t is only where payment of ta>es is accompanied by actual possession of the land covered by the ta> declaration that such circumstance may be material in supportin9 a claim of ownership* 10 The ta> receipts accompanied by actual and continuous possession of the sub:ect parcels of land by the respondents and their parents before them for more than 30 years ;ualify them to re9ister title to the said sub:ect parcels of land* 11 The #ourt can only wonder why, if 1lfredo Tabernilla did purchase the property and ma9nanimously allowed 'amasa Timtiman to remain there, he did not at least re;uire her to pay the realty ta>es in his name, not hers* The e>planation 9iven by the trial court is that he was not much concerned with the property, bein9 a bachelor and fond only of the three do9s he had bou9ht from 1merica* That is specious reasonin9* 1t best, it is pure con:ecture* &f he were really that unconcerned, it is curious that he should have ac;uired the property in the first place, even as dacion en pa9o* 4e would have demanded another form of payment if he did not have the intention at all of livin9 on the land* $n the other hand, if he were really interested in the property, we do not see why he did not have it declared in his name when the realty ta>es thereon were paid by 'amasa Timtiman or why he did not ob:ect when the payments were made in her own name* &n comparison, all the acts of 'amasa Timtiman and 0ose Tabuena indicate that they were the owners of the disputed property* 'amasa Timtiman and her forebears had been in possession thereof for more than fifty years and, indeed, she herself stayed there until she died* 12 She paid the realty ta>es thereon in her own name* 13 0ose Tabuena built a house of stron9 materials on the lot* 1- 4e even mort9a9ed the land to the 'evelopment 2an8 of the Philippines and to two private persons who ac8nowled9ed him as the owner* 1, These acts denote ownership and are not consistent with the private respondent=s claim that the petitioner was only an overseer with mere possessory ri9hts tolerated by Tabernilla* &t is the policy of this #ourt to accord proper deference to the factual findin9s of the courts below and even to re9ard them as conclusive where there is no showin9 that they have been reached arbitrarily* The e>ception is where such findin9s do not conform to the evidence on record and appear indeed to have no valid basis to sustain their correctness* 1s in this case* The conclusions of the trial court were based mainly on !>hibits A1A, A2A and A#A, which had not been formally offered as evidence and therefore should have been totally disre9arded, conformably to the Rules of #ourt* The trial court also erred when it relied on the evidence submitted in #ivil #ase No* 132< and too8 :udicial notice thereof without the consent or 8nowled9e of the petitioner, in violation of e>istin9 doctrine* Thus vitiated, the factual findin9s here challen9ed are as an edifice built upon shiftin9 sands and should not have been sustained by the respondent court* $ur own findin9 is that the private respondent, as plaintiff in the lower court, failed to prove his claim of ownership over the disputed property with evidence properly co9ni5able under our

ad:udicative laws* 2y contrast, there is substantial evidence supportin9 the petitioner=s contrary contentions that should have persuaded the trial :ud9e to rule in s favor and dismiss the complaint* @4!R!%$R!, the petition is )R1NT!'* The appealed decision is R!(!RS!' and S!T 1S&'!, with costs a9ainst the private respondent* &t is so ordered* Narvasa, )ancayco, )riIo?1;uino and "edialdea, 00*, concur*

%ootnotes 1 2 3 , . < + / Rollo, pp* ,/?<2B decided by 0ud9e )erardo "*S* Pepito* &bid*, pp* 2<?2/B )on5a9a?Reyes, 0*, ponente, with 2ellosillo and "ari9omen, 00*, concurrin9* 1+. S#R1 3+,* "oran, #omments on the Rules of #ourt, (ol* ., 1/<0 !d*, p* 21* 1</ S#R1 -03* TSN, 1pril 1<, 1/+0, p* 32* Rollo, p* 2,* *S* vs* #laveria, 2/ Phil* ,2<* Republic vs* #ourt of 1ppeals, 131 S#R1 ,33*

10 4eirs of #elso 1marante vs* #ourt of 1ppeals, 1+, S#R1 ,+,* 11 Samson vs* #ourt of 1ppeals, 1-1 S#R1 1/-*

12 Rollo, p* .-* 13 !>h* A<A* 1- Rollo, pp* 3/?-0* 1, !>hs* A12,A A13A and Al-*A

The 3awphil Pro:ect ? 1rellano 3aw %oundation