KYLA ELLEN M.

CALELAO
Evidence

G.R. No. 116018 November 13, 1996

NELIA A. CONSTANTINO, petitioner,

vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, AURORA S. ROQUE, PRISCILLA S. LUNA and JOSEFINA S.
AUSTRIA, respondents.

FACTS:

Josefa Torres died intestate leaving a parcel of land. Among her heirs are the respondents. The
heirs of Josefa Torres, as vendors, and Nelia A. Constantino, as vendee, entered into a contract to sell a
parcel of land with a total land area of two hundred and fifty (250) square meters. The lot, owned in common
by the Torres heirs, is being occupied by petitioners' mother and sister. An adjoining lot, also co-owned by
the heirs, is being occupied by spouses Severino and Consuelo Lim. Pursuant to their agreement, the heirs
authorized petitioner to prepare the necessary Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Sale.
However, without the participation of any of the Torres heirs, the property was subsequently surveyed,
subdivided and then covered by TCT Nos. T-292265 and T-292266. Petitioner did not furnish the heirs with
copies of the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Sale nor of the subdivision plan and the
certificates of title. Upon securing a copy of the deed from the Registry of Deeds, the respondents learned
that the area of the property purportedly sold to petitioner was much bigger than that agreed upon by the
parties. It already included the portion being occupied by the spouses Severino and Consuelo Lim.
Respondents sent a letter to petitioner demanding the surrender to them of the deed of settlement and
conveyance, the subdivision plan and the certificates of title; but to no avail. Thus, respondents filed with
the RTC an action for annulment of the deed and cancellation of the certificates of title, with prayer for
recovery of damages, attorney's fees and costs of suit. The trial court ruled in favor of the respondents.

Petitioner argues that the trial court should not have denied her motion to admit formal offer of
evidence merely on the basis of technicality such as late filing

ISSUE: Whether the trial court erred in denying petitioner’s motion to admit formal offer of evidence merely
on the basis of late filing

SC RULING:

NEGATIVE. The trial court was correct in holding that petitioner waived the right to formally offer
his evidence. A considerable lapse of time, about three (3) months, had already passed before petitioner's
counsel made effort to formally offer his evidence. For the trial court to grant petitioner's motion to admit
her exhibits would be to condone an inexcusable laxity if not non-compliance with a court order which, in
effect, would encourage needless delays and derail the speedy administration of justice.
KYLA ELLEN M. CALELAO
Evidence

G.R. No. 184528 April 25, 2012

NILO OROPESA, Petitioner,

vs.
CIRILO OROPESA, Respondent.

FACTS:

Nilo Oropesa filed with the RTC, a petition for him and a certain Ms. Louie Ginez to be appointed
as guardians over the property of his father, respondent, Cirilo Oropesa. In said petition, he alleged that
Cirilo Oropesa has been afflicted with several maladies and has been sickly for over 10 years already
having suffered a stroke, that his judgment and memory were impaired and such has been evident after his
hospitalization. That due to his age and medical condition, he cannot, without outside aid, manage his
property wisely, and has become easy prey for deceit and exploitation by people around him, particularly
his girlfriend. Cirilo filed his Opposition to the petition for guardianship.

During trial, Nilo presented his evidence which consists of his, his sister, and Cirilo’s former nurse’s
testimony. After presenting evidence, he rested his case but failed to file his written formal offer of evidence.
Cirilo, thereafter, filed his Omnibus Motion to declare that Nilo has waived the presentation of his Offer of
Exhibits and Evidence since they were not formally offered to expunge the documents of the petitioner from
records; and to grant leave to the Oppositor to file Demurrer to Evidence. A subsequent Demurrer was
filed and was granted.

ISSUE: Whether Cirilo is considered incompetent as per the Rules who should be placed under
guardianship

SC RULING:

NEGATIVE. The trial court is correct in dismissing the case on demurrer to evidence due to
petitioner’s non-submission of the formal offer of evidence. It is because demurrer to evidence authorizes
a judgment on the merits of the case without the defendant having to submit evidence on his part, as he
would ordinarily have to do, if plaintiff’s evidence shows that he is not entitled to the relief sought.

Here, with the failure of petitioner to formally offer his documentary evidence, his proof of his
father’s incompetence consisted purely of testimonies given by himself and his sister (who were claiming
interest in their father’s real and personal properties) and their father’s former caregiver (who admitted to
be acting under their direction). These testimonies, which did not include any expert medical testimony,
were insufficient to convince the trial court of petitioner’s cause of action and instead lead it to grant the
demurrer to evidence that was filed by respondent.

Petitioner’s documentary proof was comprised mainly of certificates of title over real properties
registered in his, his father’s and his sister’s names as co-owners, tax declarations, and receipts showing
payment of real estate taxes on their co-owned properties, which do not in any way relate to his father’s
alleged incapacity to make decisions for himself. The only medical document on record is the "Report of
Neuropsychological Screening" which was attached to the petition for guardianship but was never identified
by any witness nor offered as evidence. In any event, the said report was ambivalent at best, for although
the report had negative findings regarding memory lapses on the part of respondent, it also contained
findings that supported the view that respondent on the average was indeed competent.
KYLA ELLEN M. CALELAO
Evidence

G.R. No. 116149 November 23, 1995

ELVIRA MATO VDA. DE OÑATE, substituted by her heirs MARIA MATO-ALAMEDA, AIDA MATO,
ZOE MATO, PACITA MATO and JUAN MATO II, petitioners,
vs.
THE COURT OF APPEALS and EULALIA M. TAGUBA, respondents.

FACTS:.

Eulalia Taguba in her capacity as administratrix of the estate of the deceased Leonor Taguba, filed
an action for specific performance with damages against Elvira Mato Vda. de Oñate. Taguba alleged that
Leonor bought a parcel of land from Vda. de Oñate for a consideration of P5,000 payable in 4 installments.
After full payment, the parties however failed to reduce their contract in writing. Leonor died later. After
several demands, Vda. de Oñate refused to execute a public document of sale in favor of Leonor. The trial
court ruled in favor of the plaintiff. Vda. de Oñate appealed to the Court of Appeals faulting the trial court's
factual findings. They contended that the trial court erred when it took cognizance of the plaintiff's evidence,
particularly Exhibits "F," "F-1," "F-2" and "F-3" (receipts of the 4 installment payments), which had been
marked but never formally submitted in evidence as required by the Rules of Court. Consequently, it was
claimed that the trial court erred in relying on the said evidence in deciding for private respondents.

ISSUE: Whether the four receipts not formally offered be admitted in evidence?

SC RULING:

AFFIRMATIVE. As a general rule, the court shall not consider no evidence which has not been
formally offered. Evidence must be formally offered (Section 35, now Section 34, of Rule 132, ROC). 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 of a party. There is a distinction between identification of documentary
evidence and its formal offer as an exhibit. The first is done in the course of the trial and is accompanied
by the marking of the evidence as an exhibit while the second is done only when the party rests its case
and not before. A party, therefore, may opt to formally offer his evidence if he believes that it will advance
his cause or not to do so at all. In the event he chooses to do the latter, the trial court is not authorized by
the Rules to consider the same.

However, evidence can be admitted even if it was not formally offered provided that the following
requirements are present: first, the same must have been duly identified by testimony duly recorded and,
second, the same must have been incorporated in the records of the case.
In the case at bench, these requisites have been satisfied. The evidence in question were marked at the
pre-trial for the purpose of identifying them. Taguba identified the said exhibits in her testimony which was
duly recorded. Herein subject exhibits were also incorporated and made part of the records of this case.
KYLA ELLEN M. CALELAO
Evidence

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.

FACTS:

In 1996, the Heirs of Pedro Pasag filed a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Documents and
Titles, Recovery of Possession and Ownership, Reconveyance, Partition and Damages against the
Spouses Lorenzo and Florentina Parocha. After presenting their evidence, the Heirs of Pasag requested
the trial court to allow them to submit a written formal offer of evidence. The trial court gave them ten days
to submit. Later, the Heirs asked for an extension of time to file the formal offer. It was granted. Later still,
the Heirs again asked for another extension which was also granted. However, they were not able to submit
the formal offer within the extended period hence, when the same was submitted (five months after resting
their case), the trial court denied admission of the formal offer. As a result, Spouses Parocha filed a
demurrer to evidence and the cases filed by the Heirs of Pasag were dismissed. The Heirs appealed the
dismissal and averred that they were denied due process.

ISSUE: Whether the Heirs of Pasag were denied due process?

SC RULING:

NEGATIVE. 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. It was also emphasized by the SC that the formal offer of evidence, as a rule, must be made
orally immediately after the last witness was presented. A written formal offer may be had if the same was
moved for and was granted by the court. A written formal offer is a litigated motion which must be furnished
to the adverse party and the party submitting the same must set it for hearing. Failure to do this will be fatal
to the formal offer. Here, 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.
Petitioners’ failure to comply with the rule on admissibility of evidence is anathema to the efficient, effective,
and expeditious dispensation of justice.
KYLA ELLEN M. CALELAO
Evidence

G.R. No. 205333 February 18, 2019

MA. MELISSA VILLANUEVA MAGSINO, Petitioner

vs.
ROLANDO N. MAGSINO, Respondent

FACTS:

Respondent and petitioner were married. They have two minor children. Melissa started suspecting
that Rolando was sexually molesting his own children, then aged 3 years old and 2 years old, as she would
often see them playing with their genitalia. When she asked who taught them of such activity, the children
would answer "Papa." Thus, to protect the minors from further abuse, Melissa left the conjugal dwelling and
took the children to their maternal grandparents. Rolando then filed the a Petition to Fix the Rights of the
Father Pendente Lite with Prayers for the Issuance of a Temporary Protection Order and Hold Departure
Order against Melissa. Melissa filed her Answer with Prayer for Protection Order.

During pre-trial, Rolando manifested that he would be presenting, among other witnesses, Dr.
Cristina Gates (Gates), who will testify on the mental status and fitness of Rolando to exercise parental
authority over the minors. Gates was then subjected to cross-examination. But before propounding any
questions, Melissa's counsel, in open court, moved to strike out the direct testimony of Gates on grounds
that her expertise had not been established and that any evidence derived from hypnotically-induced
recollection is inadmissible. The RTC ruled to retain the testimony as part of the record subject to a
continuing objection on the qualification of the witness. Melissa's counsel thereafter proceeded with the
cross-examination, grilling Gates about her qualifications and the methodology used in conducting her
sessions with Rolando.

On June 5, 2010, Melissa's counsel filed a Motion to Expunge the testimony of Gates reiterating
the doubts on her expertise and to suppress related evidence particularly the psychological evaluation
report by reason of inadmissibility of hypnotically-induced recollection. The RTC denied the motion to
expunge the testimony on the ground of waiver of objection for failure to timely question the qualifications
of the witness.

ISSUE: Whether the trial court erred in holding that petitioner waived her right to raise objections to the
testimony of Dr. Gates simply because the objection was raised before cross-examination, not during direct
examination, considering that petitioner’s counsel objected to the testimony as soon as the grounds
therefore became reasonably apparent.

SC RULING:

In order to exclude evidence, the objection to admissibility of evidence must be made at the proper
time, and the grounds specified. Grounds for objections not raised at the proper time shall be considered
waived, even if the evidence was objected to on some other ground. Thus, even on appeal, the appellate
court may not consider any other ground of objection, except those that were raised at the proper time.
Objection to oral evidence must be raised at the earliest possible time, that is after the objectionable
question is asked or after the answer is given if the objectionable issue becomes apparent only after the
answer was given. In case of documentary evidence, offer is made after all the witnesses of the party
making the offer have testified, specifying the purpose for which the evidence is being offered. It is only at
this time, and not at any other, that objection to the documentary evidence may be made.

Here, the objections interposed by petitioner - as to both oral and documentary evidence - were
not timely made. Petitioner should have objected during the course of Gates' direct testimony on her
qualifications as an expert witness and explaining the mechanics of the psychological examination which
she conducted on respondent. Petitioner should not have waited in ambush after the expert witness had
already finished testifying. By so doing, petitioner did not save the time of the court in hearing the testimony
KYLA ELLEN M. CALELAO
Evidence

of the witness that after all according to her was inadmissible. And thus, for her failure to make known her
objection at the proper time, the procedural error or defect was waived. Indeed, the reason why offer must
be made at the time the witness is called to testify and the objection thereto be made, so that the court
could right away rule on whether the testimony is necessary on the ground of irrelevancy, immateriality or
whatever grounds that are available at the onset. Here, petitioner allowed a substantial amount of time to
be wasted by not forthrightly objecting to the inadmissibility of the respondent's testimonial evidence.