Amoguis v. Ballado

AMOGUIS v.
BALLADO
G.R. No. 198262 | August 20, 2018
Third Division: Leonen, J.
On 4 Nov. 1969, Ballado Spouses entered into a contract with St. Joseph Realty to buy on installments
parcels of land (Lot Nos. 1 and 2) located in Block No. 1, Dadiangas Heights Subdivision, General Santos
City. St. Joseph characterized the transaction as a Contract to Sell.
Later, the collector of St. Joseph refused payment saying that the house erected by the Spouses is an
eyesore and against the rules of the subdivision.
It was later on found out that St. Joseph rescinded the contract and the latter subsequently sold the
subject lots to the Amoguis.
Ballado Spouses then filed a Complaint for Damages, among others, on 23 December 1987.
On February 7, 1996, the Ballado Spouses presented their evidence in chief. They testified and
presented their evidence, among which were receipts to prove payments of installments, original copies
of the contracts, the transmittal letter of the P30,000 check to St. Joseph Realty, and the check. They
also presented St. Joseph Realty’s rescission letter with its evidence, addressed to the lost and not to
their residence, bearing “first attempt, cannot be located,” “second attempt, cannot be located,” and
“third attempt, cannot be located” written on it.
Finally, they presented as evidence Concepcion’s February 21, 1987 reply letter asking for her remaining
payable, St. Joseph realty’s letter acknowledging receipt of Concepcion’s February 21, 1987 letter,
documents of sale of the lands from St. Joseph Realty to the Amoguis Brothers, and Concepcion’s
September 12, 1987 letter to St. Joseph Realty, proving that she did not know that the lands had already
been sold to and titles under the names of the Amoguis Brothers in August 1987.
The RTC noted that the Ballado Spouses failed to file a formal offer of evidence, however, according to
the RTC, this was not detrimental to their case as some of these documents were admitted by St. Joseph
Realty, including the contracts to sell and the letter that it sent to the Ballado Spouses through the
wrong address.
It is the contention of the Amoguis that it was unfair to fault them for not objecting when the Ballado’s
counsel started his direct examination without offering the purpose of the witnesses’ testimonies.
1st ISSUE: WON the testimonial evidence not formally offered may still be appreciated. – YES.
Ruling: A witness’ testimony must be offered at the start, when he or she takes the stand for the first
time and before questions are propounded to him or her.
All evidence must be formally offered. Otherwise, the court cannot consider them. This rule ensures that
judges will carry out their constitutional mandate to render decisions that clearly state the facts of cases
and the applicable laws. Judgements must be based “only and strictly upon the evidence offered by the
parties to the suit.” This rule also affords the parties their right to due process by examining the
evidence presented by their opponent, and to object to its presentation when warranted.
However, testimonial evidence not formally offered but not timely objected to by an opposing party
may still be considered by the court. The purpose of offering a witness’ testimony is for the court to
expertly assess whether questions propounded are relevant and material, and if the witness is
competent to answer. It is aid to the court in ruling over the objections made by opposing counsel.
Litigation is not a game of surprises. Rules of procedure and evidence are in place to ensure the smooth
and speedy dispensation of cases. Where the opposing party presenting them, the court may not
expunge or strike them out.
Under the rules, a timely objection is a remedy available to Amoguis. They waived their right tot his
remedy when they waited until the case was submitted for resolution to do so.
2nd ISSUE: WON documentary evidence not formally offered may still be appreciated. – NO.
Ruling: Documentary or object evidence, on the other hand, must be orally offered after the
presentation of a party’s witnesses unless the court orders or allows that a written formal offer is filed.
Only the Contracts to Sell may be considered. These were the only documents attached to the written
formal offer of evidence that they filed. Hence, these documents should be considered as the only
documentary evidence formally offered. When a party fails to formally offer his or her documentary or
object evidence within a considerable period after the presentation of witnesses, he or she is deemed
to have waived the opportunity to do so. The party, therefore, as in this case, runs the risk of
weakening his or her claim or defense.

Amoguis v. Ballado

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Amoguis v. Ballado

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AMOGUIS v.

You might also like