5/6/2021 G.R. No.

121027 - Reader Mode

G.R. No. 121027

Constitution

Statutes

Executive Issuances

Judicial Issuances

Other Issuances

Jurisprudence

International Legal Resources

AUSL Exclusive

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 121027 July 31, 1997

CORAZON DEZOLLER TISON and RENE R. DEZOLLER, petitioners,

vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and TEODORA DOMINGO, respondents.

REGALADO, J.:

The present appeal by certiorari seeks the reversal of the judgment

rendered by respondent Court of Appeals on June 30, 19951 which
a rmed the Order of December 3, 1992 issued by the Regional
Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 98, granting herein private
respondent's Demurrer to Plaintiff's Evidence led in Civil Case No.
Q-88-1054 pending therein.

The present appellate review involves an action for reconveyance

led by herein petitioners against herein private respondent before
the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 98, docketed as the
aforesaid Civil Case No. Q-88-1054, over a parcel of land with a

chrome-distiller://c4f4f144-7f44-4c77-91a9-a8f6c60e0120_d0ed3fabb6f0e22a3f10b23b7292f40071ebf447c2ba24a0ec82d85729ae6996/?title=G.R.+… 1/16
5/6/2021 G.R. No. 121027 - Reader Mode

house and apartment thereon located at San Francisco del Monte,

Quezon City and which was originally owned by the spouses Martin
Guerrero and Teodora Dezoller Guerrero. It appears that petitioners
Corazon Tison and Rene Dezoller are the niece and nephew,
respectively, of the deceased Teodora Dezoller Guerrero who is the
sister of petitioner's father, Hermogenes Dezoller. Teodora Dezoller
Guerrero died on March 5, 1983 without any ascendant or
descendant, and was survived only by her husband, Martin
Guerrero, and herein petitioners. Petitioners' father, Hermogenes,
died on October 3, 1973, hence they seek to inherit from Teodora
Dezoller Guerrero by right of representation.

The records reveal that upon the death of Teodora Dezoller

Guerrero, her surviving spouse, Martin, executed on September 15,
1986 an A davit of Extrajudicial Settlement2 adjudicating unto
himself, allegedly as sole heir, the land in dispute which is covered
by Transfer Certi cate of Title No. 66886, as a consequence of
which Transfer Certi cate of Title No. 358074 was issued in the
name of Martin Guerrero. On January 2, 1988, Martin Guerrero sold
the lot to herein private respondent Teodora Domingo and
thereafter, Transfer Certi cate of Title No. 374012 was issued in
the latter's name.

Martin Guerrero died on October 25, 1988. Subsequently, herein

petitioners led an action for reconveyance on November 2, 1988,
claiming that they are entitled to inherit one-half of the property in
question by right of representation.

At the pre-trial conference, the following issues were presented by

both parties for resolution:

(1) whether or not the plaintiffs (herein petitioners) are the nephew
and niece of the late Teodora Dezoller;

(2) whether or not the plaintiffs are entitled to inherit by right of

representation from the estate of the late Teodora Dezoller;

chrome-distiller://c4f4f144-7f44-4c77-91a9-a8f6c60e0120_d0ed3fabb6f0e22a3f10b23b7292f40071ebf447c2ba24a0ec82d85729ae6996/?title=G.R.+… 2/16
5/6/2021 G.R. No. 121027 - Reader Mode

(3) whether or not defendant (herein private respondent) must

reconvey the reserved participation of the plaintiffs to the estate of
the late Teodora Dezoller under Section 4, Rule 74 of the Rules of
Court which was duly annotated on the title of the defendant;

(4) whether or not the plaintiffs are entitled to damages, moral and
exemplary, plus attorney's fees for the willful and malicious refusal
of defendant to reconvey the participation of plaintiffs in the estate
of Teodora Dezoller, despite demands and knowing fully well that
plaintiffs are the niece and nephew of said deceased; and

(5) whether or not the subject property now in litigation can be

considered as conjugal property of the spouses Martin Guerrero
and Teodora Dezoller Guerrero.3

During the hearing, petitioner Corazon Dezoller Tison was

presented as the lone witness, with the following documentary
evidence offered to prove petitioners' liation to their father and
their aunt, to wit: a family picture; baptismal certi cates of Teodora
and Hermogenes Dezoller; certi cates of destroyed records of
birth of Teodora Dezoller and Hermogenes Dezoller; death
certi cates of Hermogenes Dezoller and Teodora Dezoller
Guerrero; certi cation of destroyed records of live birth of Corazon
and Rene Dezoller; joint a davits of Pablo Verzosa and Meliton
Sitjar attesting to the parents, date and place of birth of Corazon
and Rene Dezoller; joint a davit of Juliana Cariaga and Manuela
Cariaga attesting to the fact of marriage between Martin Guerrero
and Teodora Dezoller; and the marriage certi cate of Martin and
Teodora Guerrero.4 Petitioners thereafter rested their case and
submitted a written offer of these exhibits to which a Comment5
was filed by herein private respondent.

Subsequently, private respondent led a Demurrer to Plaintiff's

Evidence on the ground that petitioners failed to prove their
legitimate liation with the deceased Teodora Guerrero in
accordance with Article 172 of the Family Code. It is further
averred that the testimony of petitioner Corazon Dezoller Tison

chrome-distiller://c4f4f144-7f44-4c77-91a9-a8f6c60e0120_d0ed3fabb6f0e22a3f10b23b7292f40071ebf447c2ba24a0ec82d85729ae6996/?title=G.R.+… 3/16
5/6/2021 G.R. No. 121027 - Reader Mode

regarding her relationship with her alleged father and aunt is self-
serving, uncorroborated and incompetent, and that it falls short of
the quantum of proof required under Article 172 of the Family Code
to establish liation. Also, the certi cation issued by the O ce of
the Local Civil Registrar of Himamaylan, Negros Occidental is
merely proof of the alleged destruction of the records referred to
therein, and the joint a davit executed by Pablo Verzosa and
Meliton Sitjar certifying to the date, place of birth and parentage of
herein petitioners is inadmissible for being hearsay since the
a ants were never presented for cross-examination.6

On December 3, 1992, the trial court issued an order granting the

demurrer to evidence and dismissing the complaint for
reconveyance.7

In upholding the dismissal, respondent Court of Appeals declared

that the documentary evidence presented by herein petitioners,
such as the baptismal certi cates, family picture, and joint
a davits are all inadmissible and insu cient to prove and
establish liation. Hence, this appeal.

We nd for petitioners.

The bone of contention in private respondent's demurrer to

evidence is whether or not herein petitioners failed to meet the
quantum of proof required by Article 172 of the Family Code to
establish legitimacy and liation. There are two points for
consideration before us: rst is the issue on petitioner's legitimacy,
and second is the question regarding their liation with Teodora
Dezoller Guerrero.

I. It is not debatable that the documentary evidence adduced by

petitioners, taken separately and independently of each other, are
not per se su cient proof of legitimacy nor even of pedigree. It is
important to note, however, that the rulings of both lower courts in
the case are basically premised on the erroneous assumption that,
in the rst place, the issue of legitimacy may be validly

chrome-distiller://c4f4f144-7f44-4c77-91a9-a8f6c60e0120_d0ed3fabb6f0e22a3f10b23b7292f40071ebf447c2ba24a0ec82d85729ae6996/?title=G.R.+… 4/16
5/6/2021 G.R. No. 121027 - Reader Mode

controverted in an action for reconveyance, and, in the second

place, that herein petitioners have the onus probandi to prove their
legitimacy and, corollarily, their liation. We disagree on both
counts.

It seems that both the court a quo and respondent appellate court
have regrettably overlooked the universally recognized
presumption on legitimacy. There is no presumption of the law
more rmly established and founded on sounder morality and
more convincing reason than the presumption that children born in
wedlock are legitimate.8 And well settled is the rule that the issue
of legitimacy cannot be attacked collaterally.

The rationale for these rules has been explained in this wise:

The presumption of legitimacy in the Family Code . . . actually xes

a civil status for the child born in wedlock, and that civil status
cannot be attacked collaterally. The legitimacy of the child can be
impugned only in a direct action brought for that purpose, by the
proper parties, and within the period limited by law.

The legitimacy of the child cannot be contested by way of defense

or as a collateral issue in another action for a different purpose.
The necessity of an independent action directly impugning the
legitimacy is more clearly expressed in the Mexican Code (Article
335) which provides: "The contest of the legitimacy of a child by
the husband or his heirs must be made by proper complaint before
the competent court; any contest made in any other way is void."
This principle applies under our Family Code. Articles 170 and 171
of the code con rm this view, because they refer to "the action to
impugn the legitimacy." This action can be brought only by the
husband or his heirs and within the periods xed in the present
articles.

Upon the expiration of the periods provided in Article 170, the

action to impugn the legitimacy of a child can no longer be
brought. The status conferred by the presumption, therefore,

chrome-distiller://c4f4f144-7f44-4c77-91a9-a8f6c60e0120_d0ed3fabb6f0e22a3f10b23b7292f40071ebf447c2ba24a0ec82d85729ae6996/?title=G.R.+… 5/16
5/6/2021 G.R. No. 121027 - Reader Mode

becomes xed, and can no longer be questioned. The obvious

intention of the law is to prevent the status of a child born in
wedlock from being in a state of uncertainty for a long time. It also
aims to force early action to settle any doubt as to the paternity of
such child, so that the evidence material to the matter, which must
necessarily be facts occurring during the period of the conception
of the child, may still be easily available.

xxx xxx xxx

Only the husband can contest the legitimacy of a child born to his
wife. He is the one directly confronted with the scandal and ridicule
which the in delity of his wife produces; and he should decide
whether to conceal that in delity or expose it, in view of the moral
and economic interest involved. It is only in exceptional cases that
his heir are allowed to contest such legitimacy. Outside of these
cases, none — even his heirs — can impugn legitimacy; that would
amount to an insult to his memory.9

The issue, therefore, as to whether petitioners are the legitimate

children of Hermogenes Dezoller cannot be properly controverted
in the present action for reconveyance. This is aside, of course,
from the further consideration that private respondent is not the
proper party to impugn the legitimacy of herein petitioners. The
presumption consequently continues to operate in favor of
petitioners unless and until it is rebutted.

Even assuming that the issue is allowed to be resolved in this case,

the burden of proof rests not on herein petitioners who have the
bene t of the presumption in their favor, but on private respondent
who is disputing the same. This fact alone should have been
su cient cause for the trial court to exercise appropriate caution
before acting, as it did, on the demurrer to evidence. It would have
delimited the issues for resolution, as well as the time and effort
necessitated thereby.

chrome-distiller://c4f4f144-7f44-4c77-91a9-a8f6c60e0120_d0ed3fabb6f0e22a3f10b23b7292f40071ebf447c2ba24a0ec82d85729ae6996/?title=G.R.+… 6/16
5/6/2021 G.R. No. 121027 - Reader Mode

Ordinarily, when a fact is presumed, it implies that the party in

whose favor the presumption exists does not have to introduce
evidence to establish that fact, and in any litigation where that fact
is put in issue, the party denying it must bear the burden of proof to
overthrow the presumption. 10 The presumption of legitimacy is so
strong that it is clear that its effect is to shift the burden of
persuasion to the party claiming illegitimacy. 11 And in order to
destroy the presumption, the party against whom it operates must
adduce substantial and credible evidence to the contrary.12

Where there is an entire lack of competent evidence to the

contrary, 13 and unless or until it is rebutted, it has been held that a
presumption may stand in lieu of evidence and support a nding or
decision. 14 Perforce, a presumption must be followed if it is
uncontroverted. This is based on the theory that a presumption is
prima facie proof of the fact presumed, and unless the fact thus
established prima facie by the legal presumption of its truth is
disproved, it must stand as proved. 15

Indubitably, when private respondent opted not to present

countervailing evidence to overcome the presumption, by merely
ling a demurrer to evidence instead, she in effect impliedly
admitted the truth of such fact. Indeed, she overlooked or
disregarded the evidential rule that presumptions like judicial
notice and admissions, relieve the proponent from presenting
evidence on the facts he alleged and such facts are thereby
considered as duly proved.

II. The weight and su ciency of the evidence regarding petitioner's

relationship with Teodora Dezoller Guerrero, whose estate is the
subject of the present controversy, requires a more intensive and
extensive examination.

Petitioners' evidence, as earlier explained, consists mainly of the

testimony of Corazon Dezoller Tison, the baptismal, death and
marriage certi cates, the various certi cations from the civil
registrar, a family picture, and several joint a davits executed by

chrome-distiller://c4f4f144-7f44-4c77-91a9-a8f6c60e0120_d0ed3fabb6f0e22a3f10b23b7292f40071ebf447c2ba24a0ec82d85729ae6996/?title=G.R.+… 7/16
5/6/2021 G.R. No. 121027 - Reader Mode

third persons all of which she identi ed and explained in the course
and as part of her testimony.

The primary proof to be considered in ascertaining the relationship

between the parties concerned is the testimony of Corazon
Dezoller Tison to the effect that Teodora Dezoller Guerrero in her
lifetime, or sometime in 1946, categorically declared that the
former is Teodora's niece. 16 Such a statement is considered a
declaration about pedigree which is admissible, as an exception to
the hearsay rule, under Section 39, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court,
subject to the following conditions: (1) that the declarant is dead or
unable to testify; (2) that the declarant be related to the person
whose pedigree is the subject of inquiry; (3) that such relationship
be shown by evidence other than the declaration; and (4) that the
declaration was made ante litem motam, that is, not only before
the commencement of the suit involving the subject matter of the
declaration, but before any controversy has arisen thereon.

There is no dispute with respect to the rst, second and fourth

elements. What remains for analysis is the third element, that is,
whether or not the other documents offered in evidence su ciently
corroborated the declaration made by Teodora Dezoller Guerrero in
her lifetime regarding the pedigree of petitioner Corazon Dezoller
Tison or, if at all, it is necessary to present evidence other than
such declaration.

American jurisdiction has it that a distinction must be made as to

when the relationship of the declarant may be proved by the very
declaration itself, or by other declarations of said declarant, and
when it must be supported by evidence aliunde. The rule is stated
thus:

One situation to be noted is that where one seeks to set up a claim

through, but not from, the declarant and to establish the
admissibility of a declaration regarding claimant's pedigree, he may
not do by declarant's own statements as to declarant's relationship
to the particular family. The reason is that declarant's declaration

chrome-distiller://c4f4f144-7f44-4c77-91a9-a8f6c60e0120_d0ed3fabb6f0e22a3f10b23b7292f40071ebf447c2ba24a0ec82d85729ae6996/?title=G.R.+… 8/16
5/6/2021 G.R. No. 121027 - Reader Mode

of his own relationship is of a self-serving nature. Accordingly there

must be precedent proof from other sources that declarant is what
he claimed to be, namely, a member of the particular family;
otherwise the requirement to admissibility that declarant's
relationship to the common family must appear is not met. But
when the party claiming seeks to establish relationship in order to
claim directly from the declarant or the declarant's estate, the
situation and the policy of the law applicable are quite different. In
such case the declaration of the decedent, whose estate is in
controversy, that he was related to the one who claims his estate,
is admissible without other proof of the fact of relationship. While
the nature of the declaration is then disserving, that is not the real
ground for its admission. Such declarations do not derive their
evidential value from that consideration, although it is a useful, if
not an arti cial, aid in determining the class to which the
declarations belong. The distinction we have note is su ciently
apparent; in the one case the declarations are self-serving, in the
other they are competent from reasons of necessity. 17 (Emphasis
ours.)

The general rule, therefore, is that where the party claiming seeks
recovery against a relative common to both claimant and
declarant, but not from the declarant himself or the declarant's
estate, the relationship of the declarant to the common relative
may not be proved by the declaration itself. There must be some
independent proof of this fact. 18 As an exception, the requirement
that there be other proof than the declarations of the declarant as
to the relationship, does not apply where it is sought to reach the
estate of the declarant himself and not merely to establish a right
through his declarations to the property of some other member of
the family. 19

We are su ciently convinced, and so hold, that the present case is

one instance where the general requirement on evidence aliunde
may be relaxed. Petitioners are claiming a right to part of the
estate of the declarant herself. Conformably, the declaration made

chrome-distiller://c4f4f144-7f44-4c77-91a9-a8f6c60e0120_d0ed3fabb6f0e22a3f10b23b7292f40071ebf447c2ba24a0ec82d85729ae6996/?title=G.R.+… 9/16
5/6/2021 G.R. No. 121027 - Reader Mode

by Teodora Dezoller Guerrero that petitioner Corazon is her niece,

is admissible and constitutes su cient proof of such relationship,
notwithstanding the fact that there was no other preliminary
evidence thereof, the reason being such declaration is rendered
competent by virtue of the necessity of receiving such evidence to
avoid a failure of justice. 20 More importantly, there is in the
present case an absolute failure by all and sundry to refute that
declaration made by the decedent.

From the foregoing disquisitions, it may thus be safely concluded,

on the sole basis of the decedent's declaration and without need
for further proof thereof, that petitioners are the niece and nephew
of Teodora Dezoller Guerrero. As held in one case, 21 where the
subject of the declaration is the declarant's own relationship to
another person, it seems absurb to require, as a foundation for the
admission of the declaration, proof of the very fact which the
declaration is offered to establish. The preliminary proof would
render the main evidence unnecessary.

Applying the general rule in the present case would nonetheless

produce the same result. For while the documentary evidence
submitted by petitioners do not strictly conform to the rules on
their admissibility, we are however of the considered opinion that
the same may be admitted by reason of private respondent's
failure to interpose any timely objection thereto at the time they
were being offered in evidence. 22 It is elementary that an
objection shall
be made at the time when an alleged inadmissible document is
offered in evidence, 23 otherwise, the objection shall be treated as
waived, 24 since the right to object is merely a privilege which the
party may waive. 25

As explained in Abrenica vs. Gonda, et al., 26 it has been repeatedly

laid down as a rule of evidence that a protest or objection against
the admission of any evidence must be made at the proper time,
otherwise it will be deemed to have been waived. The proper time
is when from the question addressed to the witness, or from the
chrome-distiller://c4f4f144-7f44-4c77-91a9-a8f6c60e0120_d0ed3fabb6f0e22a3f10b23b7292f40071ebf447c2ba24a0ec82d85729ae6996/?title=G.R.… 10/16
5/6/2021 G.R. No. 121027 - Reader Mode

answer thereto, or from the presentation of the proof, the

inadmissibility of the evidence is, or may be inferred.

Thus, a failure to except to the evidence because it does not

conform with the statute is a waiver if the provisions of the law.
That objection to a question put to a witness must be made at the
time the question is asked. An objection to the admission of
evidence on the ground of incompetency, taken after the testimony
has been given, is too late. 27 Thus, for instance, failure to object to
parol evidence given on the stand, where the party is in a position
to object, is a waiver of any objections thereto. 28

The situation is aggravated by the fact that counsel for private

respondent unreservedly cross-examined petitioners, as the lone
witness, on the documentary evidence that were offered. At no
time was the issue of the supposed inadmissibility thereof, or the
possible basis for objection thereto, ever raised. Instead, private
respondent's counsel elicited answers from the witness on the
circumstances and regularity of her obtention of said documents:
The observations later made by private respondent in her comment
to petitioners' offer of exhibits, although the grounds therefor were
already apparent at the time these documents were being adduced
in evidence during the testimony of Corazon Dezoller Tison but
which objections were not timely raised therein, may no longer
serve to rectify the legal consequences which resulted therefrom.
Hence, even assuming ex gratia argumenti that these documents
are inadmissible for being hearsay, but on account of herein private
respondent's failure to object thereto, the same may be admitted
and considered as su cient to prove the facts therein asserted. 29

Accordingly, the Certi cate of Marriage (Exhibit S) wherein it is

indicated that the parents of Teodora Dezoller are Isabelo Dezoller
and Cecilia Calpo, as well as the Certi cates of Baptism of Teodora
Dezoller 30 (Exhibit H) and Hermogenes Dezoller (Exhibit J) which
both re ect the names of their parents as Isabelo Dezoller and
Cecilia Calpo, to show that Hermogenes Dezoller is the brother of
Teodora Dezoller Guerrero; and the Death Certi cate of
chrome-distiller://c4f4f144-7f44-4c77-91a9-a8f6c60e0120_d0ed3fabb6f0e22a3f10b23b7292f40071ebf447c2ba24a0ec82d85729ae6996/?title=G.R.… 11/16
5/6/2021 G.R. No. 121027 - Reader Mode

Hermogenes Dezoller (Exhibit K) the entries wherein were made by

petitioner Corazon Dezoller Tison as his daughter, together with the
Joint A davits of Pablo Verzosa and Meliton Sitjar (Exhibits N and
P), to prove that herein petitioners are the children of Hermogenes
Dezoller — these can be deemed to have su ciently established
the relationship between the declarant and herein petitioners. This
is in consonance with the rule that a prima facie showing is
su cient and that only slight proof of the relationship is required.
31 Finally, it may not be amiss to consider as in the nature of
circumstantial evidence the fact that both the declarant and the
claimants, who are the subject of the declaration, bear the surname
Dezoller. 32

III. The following provisions of the Civil Code provide for the
manner by which the estate of the decedent shall be divided in this
case, to wit:

Art. 975. When children of one or more brothers or sisters of the

deceased survive, they shall inherit from the latter by
representation, if they survive with their uncles or aunts. But if they
alone survive, they shall inherit in equal portions.

Art. 995. In the absence of legitimate descendants and

ascendants, and illegitimate children and their descendants,
whether legitimate or illegitimate, the surviving spouse shall inherit
the entire estate, without prejudice to the rights of brothers and
sisters, nephews and nieces, should there be any, under Article
1001.

Art. 1001. Should brothers and sisters or their children survive with
the widow or widower, the latter shall be entitled to one-half of the
inheritance and the brothers and sisters or theirs children to the
other half.

Upon the death of Teodora Dezoller Guerrero, one-half of the

subject property was automatically reserved to the surviving
spouse, Martin Guerrero, as his share in the conjugal partnership.

chrome-distiller://c4f4f144-7f44-4c77-91a9-a8f6c60e0120_d0ed3fabb6f0e22a3f10b23b7292f40071ebf447c2ba24a0ec82d85729ae6996/?title=G.R.… 12/16
5/6/2021 G.R. No. 121027 - Reader Mode

Applying the aforequoted statutory provisions, the remaining half

shall be equally divided between the widower and herein
petitioners who are entitled to jointly inherit in their own right.
Hence, Martin Guerrero could only validly alienate his total
undivided three-fourths (3/4) share in the entire property to herein
private respondent. Resultantly, petitioners and private respondent
are deemed co-owners of the property covered by Transfer
Certi cate of Title No. 374012 in the proportion of an undivided
one-fourth (1/4) and three-fourths (3/4) share thereof, respectively.

All told, on the basis of the foregoing considerations, the demurrer

to plaintiff's evidence should have been, as it is hereby, denied.
Nonetheless, private respondent may no longer be allowed to
present evidence by reason of the mandate under Section 1 of
revised Rule 3 of the Rules of Court which provides that "if the
motion is granted but on appeal the order of dismissal is reversed
he shall be deemed to have waived the right to present evidence."
33

WHEREFORE, the questioned judgment of respondent Court of

Appeals is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and herein
petitioners and private respondent are declared co-owners of the
subject property with an undivided one-fourth (1/4) and three-
fourths (3/4) share therein, respectively.

SO ORDERED.

Romero, Puno and Mendoza, JJ., concur.

Torres, Jr., J., is on leave.

Footnotes
1 Penned by Associate Justice Gloria C. Paras, with Associate
Justices Quirino Abad Santos, Jr. and Delilah Vidallon Magtolis,
concurring; Annex K; Petition, Rollo, 74.

2 Annex B, id.; ibid., 41.

chrome-distiller://c4f4f144-7f44-4c77-91a9-a8f6c60e0120_d0ed3fabb6f0e22a3f10b23b7292f40071ebf447c2ba24a0ec82d85729ae6996/?title=G.R.… 13/16
5/6/2021 G.R. No. 121027 - Reader Mode

3 Original Record, 207-208.

4 Ibid., 224-229.

5 Ibid., 233-234.

6 Ibid., 259-267.

7 Ibid., 275.

8 Jones, Commentaries on Evidence, Vol. 1, 2nd ed., 118-119.

9 Tolentino, A., Civil Code of the Philippines, Commentaries and

Jurisprudence, Vol. 1, 1990 ed., 535-537.

10 Op. cit., 535.

11 Jones on Evidence, Vol. 1, 5th ed., 178.

12 95 ALR 883.

13 31A CJS, Evidence, Sec. 114, 195.

14 Ibid., Sec. 119, 216.

15 Brawsell vs. Tindall, 294 SW 2d 685.

16 TSN, February 14, 1992, 5-8.

17 Jones, Commentaries on Evidence, Vol. 3, 2nd ed., 2094-2095.

18 Op. cit., 2096.

19 Op. cit., 2098.

20 In re Clark's Estate, 110 P 828.

21 Hartman's Estate, 107 P 105, cited in Moran, Comments on the

Rules of Court, Vol. 5, 1980 ed., 322.

22 On offer of evidence, the Rules of Court pertinently provide:

chrome-distiller://c4f4f144-7f44-4c77-91a9-a8f6c60e0120_d0ed3fabb6f0e22a3f10b23b7292f40071ebf447c2ba24a0ec82d85729ae6996/?title=G.R.… 14/16
5/6/2021 G.R. No. 121027 - Reader Mode

"Sec. 35. When to make offer. — . . .

Documentary and object evidence shall be offered after the

presentation of a party's testimonial evidence. Such offer shall be
done orally unless allowed by the Court to be done by writing.

"Sec. 36. Objection. — Objection to evidence offered orally must be

made immediately after the offer is made.

Objection to a question propounded in the course of the oral

examination of a witness shall be made as soon as the grounds
therefor shall become reasonably apparent."

23 Martin, Rules of Court, Vol. 5, 3rd ed., 611.

24 People vs. De la Cruz, G.R. No. 108180, February 8, 1994, 229

SCRA 754.

25 Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, Vol. 6, 1980 ed., 125.

26 34 Phil. 745 (1916).

27 Conlu vs. Araneta, et al., 15 Phil. 387 (1910).

28 See Talosig vs. Vda. De Nieba, et al., G.R. No. L-29557, February
29, 1972, 43 SCRA 472.

29 Op cit., 128.

30 This parochial record is an o cial document, having been made

prior to the passage of G.O. No. 68 and Act No. 190 (U.S. vs.
Evangelista, 29 Phil. 215 (1915), and cases therein cited).

31 Fulkerson, et al vs. Holmes, et al., 117 US 389.

32 Francisco, Rules of Court, Vol. 7, 1973 ed., 494.

33 This amendatory provision under the 1997 Rules of Civil

Procedure, which took effect on July 1, 1997, is substantially the
same as the antecedent provision in Sec. 1, Rule 35: "However, if

chrome-distiller://c4f4f144-7f44-4c77-91a9-a8f6c60e0120_d0ed3fabb6f0e22a3f10b23b7292f40071ebf447c2ba24a0ec82d85729ae6996/?title=G.R.… 15/16
5/6/2021 G.R. No. 121027 - Reader Mode

the motion is granted and the order of dismissal is reversed on

appeal, the movant loses his right to present evidence in his
behalf."

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

chrome-distiller://c4f4f144-7f44-4c77-91a9-a8f6c60e0120_d0ed3fabb6f0e22a3f10b23b7292f40071ebf447c2ba24a0ec82d85729ae6996/?title=G.R.… 16/16