RAMON A.

AREVALO, as administrator of the estate of Catalino Arevalo,

deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. J. F. DIMAYUGA, Defendant-Appellant
G.R. No. 26218. January 29, 1927. JOHNSON, J. [49 Phil. 894]

FACTS: Petitioner Ramon Arevalo filed an action in the Court of First Instance
of the City of Manila to recover the possession of a certain piece of property
located at 622 Calle Regidor in the City of Manila, together with the rent thereon
in a sum amounting to P8,066.66. Defendant J.F. Dimayuga alleged that the
property in question was his sole and separate property; that he had given said
property to the deceased Catalino Arevalo as a guaranty for the payment of a
loan of P20,000; that the document executed, evidencing said loan, while in form
was a pacto de retro, was in fact a mere loan and that the said contracts were
contrary to the provisions of the Usury Law. The defendant also contended that
the lower court committed an error in excluding certain testimony which relates
to certain conversations which the he is supposed to have had with Catalino
Arevalo during his lifetime.

ISSUE: Whether the lower court has erred in excluding certain testimony given
by the defendant during the trial of the cause.

RULING: NO. The rule of evidence is well established, that the protest or
objection against the admission of evidence should be presented at the time the
evidence is offered, and that the proper time to make protest or objection to the
admissibility of evidence is when the question is presented to the witness or at
the time the answer thereto is given. It is also a well-established rule of evidence,
that the court may, in its discretion, strike out incompetent evidence although
such evidence was given without objection and although the motion to strike out
is not made until the evidence is already in.

The court may also, upon its own motion, strike out evidence improperly
admitted at any time during the day of the trial or at any time before the close of
the trial. It has also been held that the court, upon its own motion, even during
the closing argument of the counsel, may strike out evidence improperly
admitted. Parties to the action are not precluded from asking the court to discard
irrelevant and inadmissible evidence even though it had been previously
admitted without objection.