Vda. De Onate v.

CA
G.R. No. 116149 – November 23, 1995
First Division | J. Kapunan

Digest Author: Vito

Topic: When to Make Offer (Rule 132, Sec. 35)

Case Summary: The deceased Leonor Taguba bought a parcel of land from Elvira Mato Vda. de Oñate
sometime in 1976 for a consideration of P5,000.00 payable in four (4) installments. After full payment, the
parties however failed to reduce their contract in writing. Petitioner refused to executed a public document of
sale in favor of the deceased and her heirs, which prompted the latter to file an action for specific performance
with damages. The trial court ruled in favor of the heirs of Leonor. Before the CA, petitioner contends that three
exhibits, which referred to various receipts of paid installments by Leonor, were only marked but were never
formally submitted in evidence as required by the Rules of Court. Hence, the trial court erred in relying on the
said evidence in deciding for private respondents. The CA sustained the lower court decision holding that
although the said exhibits were not formally offered, they may still be admitted in evidence for having complied
with the two (2) requisites for admission.
The Court affirmed the CA decision. In the case at bench, the evidence in question refers to various
receipts of different dates, all showing the varying amounts paid by Leonor Taguba to Elvira Mato Vda. de
Oñate. These exhibits were marked at the pre-trial for the purpose of identifying them. In fact, the
payment of P5,000.00 was admitted by herein petitioners in the same pre-trial when Eulalia Marcita
Taguba identified the said exhibits in her testimony which was duly recorded. Likewise, the witness explained
the the contents of each of the said exhibits. Also telling is petitioners' counsel vigorous cross-examination of
the said witness who testified on the exhibits in question. Herein subject exhibits were also incorporated and
made part of the records of this case.

Doctrines/Laws Involved: It is true that 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. However, the Court
has since relaxed such rule and allowed evidence not formally offered to be admitted and considered by
the trial court provided 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.

FACTS:

1. The deceased Leonor Taguba bought the subject parcel of land from Elvira Mato Vda. de Oñate
sometime in 1976 for a consideration of P5,000.00 payable in four (4) installments.
2. After the full payment was made on July 29, 1976, the parties however failed to reduce their contract in
writing.
3. Upon Leonor’s death on Dec. 30, 1976, his heirs demanded upon petitioner to execute a public
document of sale in favor of the deceased and her heirs, which she refused.
4. Hence, an action for specific performance with damages was filed by Eulalia Marcita Taguba in her
capacity as administratrix of the estate of the deceased Leonor Taguba against petitioner.
 5. The trial court ruled in favor of the heirs of Leonor. Before the CA, petitioner contends that Exhibits
"F," "F-1," "F-2" and "F-3," which had been marked were never formally submitted in evidence as
required by the Rules of Court. Hence, the trial court erred in relying on the said evidence in deciding
for private respondents.
6. The CA affirmed and held that although the said exhibits were not formally offered, they may still be
admitted in evidence for having complied with the two (2) requisites for admission:
a. That evidence must be duly identified by testimony duly recorded; and
b. That it must be incorporated in the records of the case.

ISSUES + HELD/RATIO:
1. Whether or not the said exhibits may be admitted even if not formally offered – YES
a. SECTION 35. Offer of evidence. — The court shall consider no evidence which has not been
formally offered. The purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specified.
b. From the foregoing provision, for the evidence to be considered, the same must be formally
offered. Corollarily, 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.
c. In Interpacific Transit, Inc. v. Aviles:
i. Identification of documentary evidence – done during the trial and is accompanied by
the marking of the evidence as an exhibit
ii. Formal offer as an exhibit – done only when the party rests its case and not before.
iii. 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.
d. However, in People v. Napat-a citing People v. Mate, we relaxed the foregoing rule and
allowed evidence not formally offered to be admitted and considered by the trial court
provided the following requirements are present:
i. First, the same must have been duly identified by testimony duly recorded, and
ii. Second, the same must have been incorporated in the records of the case.
e. In the case at bench, we find, as respondent court did, that these requisites have been satisfied.
i. The evidence in question refers to exhibits "F," receipt for P2,250.00 dated January 20,
1976; "F-1," receipt for P750.00 dated February 23, 1976; "F-2," receipt for P1,000.00
dated March 20, 1976; and F-3," receipt for another P1,000.00 dated July 29, 1976, all
showing the varying amounts paid by Leonor Taguba to Elvira Mato Vda. de
Oñate.
ii. These exhibits were marked at the pre-trial for the purpose of identifying them. In
fact, the payment of P5,000.00 was admitted by herein petitioners in the same pre-
trial when Eulalia Marcita Taguba identified the said exhibits in her testimony which
was duly recorded.
iii. Likewise, extant from the records is the witness' explanation of the contents of each of
the said exhibits.
iv. Also telling is petitioners' counsel vigorous cross-examination of the said witness who
testified on the exhibits in question. Herein subject exhibits were also incorporated and
made part of the records of this case.
DISPOSITIVE: WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error on the part of respondent court, the decision
appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.