Heirs of Spouses Arcilla v. Teodoro G.R. No.

162886 | August 11, 2008 Doctrine: The certification of non-forum shopping executed in a foreign country is not covered by Section 24, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. The required certification of an officer in the foreign service under Section 24 refers only to the documents enumerated in Section 19(a). Had the Court intended to include notarial documents, it should not have specified only the documents referred to under paragraph (a) of Section 19. Facts: Ma. Lourdes A. Teodoro initially filed with the RTC-Virac, Catanduanes an application for land registration of two parcels located at Barangay San Pedro, Virac, Catanduanes. These are denominated as Lot Nos. 525-A and 525-B. Teodoro alleged that a. with the exception of the commercial building constructed thereon, she purchased the lots from her father Pacifico Arcilla by a Deed of Sale dated December 9, 1966 b. prior thereto, Pacifico acquired the lots by partition of the estate of his father, Jose evidenced by an Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate c. there is also an Affidavit of Quit-Claim in favor of Pacifico, executed by the Heirs of Vicente , brother of Pacifico The case was transferred to MTC-Virac in view of the expanded jurisdiction of said court under R.A. 7691. In their Opposition, moving to dismiss the application of Teodoro and seeking their declaration as true and absolute owners pro-indiviso and the registration and issuance of corresponding certificate of title in their names, the Heirs contended that a. they are the owners pro-indiviso of the lots including the building and other improvements thereon by virtue of inheritance from their deceased parents, spouses Vicente and Josefa b. contrary to the claim of Teodoro, the lots were owned by their father, Vicente, having purchased the same from a certain Manuel Sarmiento c. Vicente's ownership is evidenced by several tax declarations d. They and their predecessors-in-interest had been in possession of the lots since 1906. Teodoro belatedly filed the verification and certificate against forum shopping, hence, the Heirs filed a MTD on the ground that Teodoro should have filed the certificate against forum shopping simultaneously with the petition which is a mandatory requirement of SC Admin. Circular 04-94 and that any violation thereof shall be a cause for dismissal of application upon motion and after hearing. Opposing the MTD, Teodoro asserted that: a. The Heirs MTD Application was filed out of time b. Her failure to comply with the Circular was not willful, deliberate or intentional c. the MTD was deemed waived for failure of petitioners to file the same during the earlier stages of the proceedings The MTC denied the MTD Application. Later, the MTC ordered the confirmation and registration of the land in Teodoros name having presented sufficient title thereto. The Heirs then filed an appeal with the RTC-Virac, which dismissed the appeal for lack of merit and affirmed in toto the MTC Decision. The Heirs filed a MR but was denied. The Heirs then filed a Petition for Review with the CA, which dismissed the same. The Heirs filed a MR but the same was denied. Issue:

Whether the certification of non-forum shopping subsequently submitted does not require a certification from an officer of the foreign service of the Philippines as provided under Section 24, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court? Held: YES. WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated September 12, 2003 and its Resolution ofMarch 24, 2004 in CA-G.R. SP No. 72032 are AFFIRMED. The certification of non-forum shopping executed in a foreign country is not covered by Section 24, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. The Court agrees with the CA when it held that Section 24, Rule 132, Rules of Court does not include documents acknowledged before a notary public abroad. To be admissible for any purpose in Philippine courts, foreign public documents must be certified by any officer of the Philippine legation stationed in the country where the documents could be found or had been executed. However, the Rule basically pertains to written official acts, or records of the official of the sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers, whether of the Philippines, or of a foreign country. It explicitly refers only to paragraph (a) of Sec. 19. If the rule comprehends to cover notarial documents, the rule could have included so. What is important is that the applicant certified before a commissioned officer clothed with powers to administer oath that she has not and will not commit forum shopping. The ruling in Lopez v. Court of Appeals (156 SCRA 838, December 29, 1987), cited by the Heirs, is inapplicable because the Rules in effect at that time were prior to their amendment in 1989. When the Rules of Evidence were amended in 1989, Section 25, Rule 132 of the Old Rules became Section 24, Rule 132; and the amendment consisted in the deletion of the introductory phrase An official record or an entry therein, which was substituted by the phrase The record of public documents referred to in paragraph (a) of Section 19. Thus, Section 24, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court now reads as follows: Sec. 24. Proof of official record. - The record of public documents referred to in paragraph (a) of Section 19, when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having legal custody of the record, or by his deputy, and accompanied, if the record is not kept in the Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has the custody. If the office in which the record is kept is in a foreign country, the certificate may be made by a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice consul or consular agent or by any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his office. (Emphasis supplied) Section 19(a) of the same Rule provides: Sec. 19. Classes of documents. - For the purpose of their presentation in evidence, documents are either public or private. Public documents are: (a) The written official acts or records of the official acts of the sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers, whether of the Philippines or of a foreign country; (b) Documents acknowledged before a notary public except last wills and testaments; and (c) Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents required by law to be entered therein.

All other writings are private. It cannot be overemphasized that the required certification of an officer in the foreign service under Section 24 refers only to the documents enumerated in Section 19(a). The Court agrees with the CA that had the Court intended to include notarial documents as one of the public documents contemplated by Section 24, it should not have specified only the documents referred to under paragraph (a) of Section 19. Other ruling: - The CA ruled correctly when it held that the belated filing of a sworn certification of non-forum shopping was substantial compliance with SC Administrative Circular No. 04-94. - The CA did not err in sustaining the findings of fact and conclusion of law of the MTC and the RTC. The Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate in favor of Pacifico, the Affidavit of Quitclaim and the Deed of Sale in favor of Teodoro establish her ownership over the disputed property. Heirs of Pasag, et al. v. Spouses Parocha, et al. G.R. No. 155483 | April 27, 2007 Doctrine: 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. Facts: Petitioners filed a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Documents and Titles, Recovery of Possession and Ownership, Reconveyance, Partition and Damages at RTC- the Urdaneta City, Pangasinan against respondents, alleging: a. a share over three (3) properties owned by respondents, which formed part of the estate of petitioners deceased grandparents b. their grandparents, Spouses Benito and Florentina, died intestate, leaving behind all their properties to their eight (8) children Pedro, Isidro, Basilio, Severino, Bonifacio, Maria, Juanita, and Fortunata. c. However, Severino, predecessor of respondents, claimed in an affidavit of selfadjudication that he is the sole, legal, and compulsory heir; consequently, he was able to appropriate to himself the properties covered by OCT Nos. 2983 and 1887 d. Thereafter, Severino executed a deed of absolute sale over said properties in favor of his daughter Florentina e. 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 their grandparents In denying the material allegations, respondents averred that: a. the properties left behind by spouses Benito and Florentina had already been partitioned among their eight (8) surviving children b. the parcels of land covered by OCT Nos. 2983 and 1887 are Bonifacios share of which he later on renounced in favor of his brother, Severino c. as regards the parcel covered by OCT No. P-20607, it had been in Severinos possession and occupation since 1940, thus, giving him the right to apply for and be granted a free patent over it. d. Severinos title had now become indefeasible, having complied with the requirements of law Trial 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 within the required period. On April 19, 1999,

petitioners asked and were granted until May evidence. However, on they again failed to submit another extension of five (5) days. Unfortunately, formal offer of evidence. In its June 17, 1999 Order, right to make their formal offer of evidence waived.

11, 1999 to submit their offer of their offer of evidence and moved for petitioners still failed to submit their the trial court deemed the petitioners

On July 27, 1999, petitioners moved for admission of their offer. On September 1, 1999, however, the trial court denied petitioners formal offer because of their consistent failure to submit it. Respondents filed a MTD on Demurrer to Evidence which the trial court granted. It ordered the dismissal of the Complaint. Petitioners MR was denied for lack of merit. Petitioners appealed to the CA which affirmed the ruling of the trial court and held that petitioners failed to prove their claim by a preponderance of evidence. It observed that no concrete and substantial evidence was adduced to substantiate that Severino, the predecessor of respondents, fraudulently executed an affidavit of self-adjudication in order to exclude petitioners from the settlement of the estate. Issue: Whether there was waiver of petitioners offer of documentary evidence? Held: The petition has no merit. 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. Waiver of the Offer of Evidence The Rules of Court provides that the court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered.(Sec. 34, Rule 132) 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. Strict adherence to the said rule is not a trivial matter. The Court in Constantino v. Court of Appeals (264 SCRA 59, May 31, 2000) ruled that the formal offer of ones 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 needless delays and derail the speedy administration of justice. Applying the aforementioned principle in this case, 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. Petitioners 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 of pre-trial and case of deposition and discovery measures (June 8, 2004 En Banc Resolution in A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC):

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 partys 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 partys 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 numbersay from 100 and above, and only where there is unusual difficulty in preparing the offer. On 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. It must be stressed that fraud is not presumed; and it must be proved by clear and convincing evidence, and not by mere conjectures or speculations. No such evidence was presented in this case to sustain petitioners allegations.