G.R. No. 9113, Lopez v. Valdez, 32 Phil.

644
Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COUR Manila EN BANC December 24, 191 !"R" No" 911# !EN" O LOPE#, ad$i%i&'(a'o( o) 'he e&'a'e o) Ma(*ela E$(ad+(a, de*ea&ed, plaintiff$appellee, %s" OM,S V,L-E#, &efen&ant$appellant" Godofredo Reyes for appellant. Vicente Agregado for appellee. MOREL,N-, J.: 'his is an action be(un b) the a&ministrator of the estate of Marcela Emra&ura, &ecease&, a(ainst 'omas *al&e+ for the reco%er) of possession of the lan& &escribe& in the complaint on the pa)ment b) the plaintiff of the sum of P#," -u&(ment .as for plaintiff an& the court or&ere& &eli%er) of possession of the lan& &escribe& in the complaint on the pa)ment b) plaintiff of the P#, mentione& in the complaint" 'he court also or&ere& the cancellation of the re(istration of that portion of the lan& of !re(orio /an A(ustin .hich inclu&es the lan& in liti(ation in this action" /e%eral errors are assi(ne& on this appeal" 'he first is that there is no proof in the recor& that appellee .as appointe& a&ministrator of the estate of Marcela Emra&ura, &ecease&" An e0amination of the recor& &iscloses that this error is .ell assi(ne&" 'here is no e%i&ence in the recor& sho.in( that Benito 1ope+ .as e%er appointe& a&ministrator of the estate of Marcela Emra&ura, &ecease&2 nor is there an) in&ication in the recor& that the parties to the action acte& on the assumption that such appointment ha& been ma&e or that the &efen&ant, b) an) act of his, estoppe& himself on this appeal from alle(in( the error assi(ne&" 3n this (roun& alone the 4u&(ment .oul& ha%e to be set asi&e" 5Crai( vs. 1euterio, 11 Phil" Rep", 44"6 'he secon& error assi(ne& is base& on the proce&ure a&opte& b) the court .hen ob4ections .ere interpose& b) counsel for appellant to 7uestions &esi(ne& to a&&uce e%i&ence of the contents of .ritten &ocuments .hen the &estruction or the loss of the &ocuments ha& not been properl) establishe&" 8t appears from the recor& that appellee relie& on certain .ritten contracts entere& into bet.een the appellant an& Marcela Emra&ura &urin( her lifetime to pro%e the cause of action set out in the complaint" 'he &ocuments themsel%es .ere not pro&uce& an& .hen counsel for appellee sou(ht to pro%e b) certain .itnesses the contents of these &ocuments, .ithout presentin( facts 4ustif)in( secon&ar) e%i&ence .ith reference thereto, counsel for appellant ma&e the ob4ection that the e%i&ence .as incompetent an& improper as the &ocuments themsel%es .ere the best e%i&ence" /e%eral of these ob4ections .ere ma&e, to each of .hich the court, .ithout a &ecision on the ob4ections, state&9 :'he ob4ection of Mr" Re)es .ill be ta;en into consi&eration": 'he .itnesses .ere thereupon allo.e&, o%er the e0ception of appellant, to ans.er the 7uestions to .hich the ob4ections .ere interpose&" A &ecision on these ob4ections .as thus left in abe)ance an& the trial terminate& .ithout a resolution of the 7uestions presente&" 8n spite of that the trial court in its final &ecision too; into consi&eration the secon&ar) e%i&ence thus intro&uce& an& base& its &ecision thereon" <e are of the opinion that this proce&ure .as pre4u&icial to the ri(hts an& interests of the appellant"

Parties .ho offer ob4ections to 7uestions on .hate%er (roun& are entitle& to a rulin( at the time the ob4ection is ma&e unless the) present a 7uestion .ith re(ar& to .hich the court &esires to inform itself before ma;in( its rulin(" 8n that e%ent it is perfectl) proper for the court to ta;e a reasonable time to stu&) the 7uestion presente& b) the ob4ection2 but a rulin( shoul& al.a)s be ma&e &urin( the trial an& at such time as .ill (i%e the part) a(ainst .hom the rulin( is ma&e an opportunit) to meet the situation presente& b) the rulin(" 'he &isa&%anta(eous position in .hich a part) ma) be put b) the reser%ation of a rulin( on an ob4ection to a 7uestion is illustrate& b) the case in han&" 8f the court ha& (i%en a prompt rulin( on the ob4ections, appellant .oul& ha%e ha& an opportunit) to meet the situation presente&" 8f his ob4ection ha& been o%errule&, he coul& ha%e ta;en his e0ception an& offere& e%i&ence to rebut that a&&uce& b) the ob4ectionable 7uestions" 8f the rulin( ha& been the other .a), appellee .oul& ha%e been un&er the necessit) of offerin( the &ocuments themsel%es, at .hich time appellant .oul& ha%e been able to present an) &efense to them .hich the facts an& circumstances mi(ht ha%e re7uire& or permitte&" 'here ha%in( been no &ecision &urin( the course of the trial, appellant=s counsel ha& no means of ;no.in( .hat the rulin( of the court .oul& be on the ob4ection an&, conse7uentl), he coul& not ;no. .hether or not he .oul& be compelle& to meet an) e%i&ence at all2 for, if the ob4ection .ere sustaine&, then appellee ha& offere& no competent e%i&ence to support his case2 .hereas, if the ob4ection .ere o%errule&, then appellant .oul& not ha%e the benefit of a rulin( on his ob4ection or of the e0ception ta;en thereto" <e &o not re(ar& the proce&ure ob4ecte& to as permissible un&er the facts an& circumstances of this case an& .e belie%e that it pre4u&ice& the substantial ri(hts of appellant" <e are also of the opinion that the error assi(ne& on the merits is also .ell assi(ne&" <e &o not belie%e that the plaintiff has pro%e& that the estate .hich he represents is entitle& to possession of the lan&s in 7uestion" >or the reason that the 4u&(ment must be re%erse& on the other (roun&s mentione&, .e &o not enter into a len(th) &iscussion of the e%i&ence" <e are of the opinion that the e%i&ence &oes not support the fin&in( of the court that plaintiff is entitle& to possession" 8n ma;in( this &ecision .e &o not touch the title to the propert), the action bein( simpl) for possession" 'he 4u&(ment appeale& from is re%erse& an& the complaint &ismisse& on the merits, .ithout costs in this instance" /o or&ere&"