Scribd
Upload
339 views2 pages

PHILIP S. YU, Petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, Second Division, and VIVECA LIM YU, Respondents. Facts

Viveca Yu filed for legal separation from her husband Philip Yu, citing marital infidelity and abuse. During trial, Viveca requested subpoenas for Philip's suspected illegitimate child's insurance documents from Insular Life. The trial court preemptively denied the motion and declared the documents inadmissible. The Court of Appeals overturned this ruling, finding the trial court's pronouncement premature. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a trial court cannot deny a party's ability to present excluded evidence and raise the exclusion on appeal, as the trial court did not have enough information at that early stage to determine admissibility.

Uploaded by

Angela Marie Almalbis
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
339 views2 pages

PHILIP S. YU, Petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, Second Division, and VIVECA LIM YU, Respondents. Facts

Viveca Yu filed for legal separation from her husband Philip Yu, citing marital infidelity and abuse. During trial, Viveca requested subpoenas for Philip's suspected illegitimate child's insurance documents from Insular Life. The trial court preemptively denied the motion and declared the documents inadmissible. The Court of Appeals overturned this ruling, finding the trial court's pronouncement premature. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a trial court cannot deny a party's ability to present excluded evidence and raise the exclusion on appeal, as the trial court did not have enough information at that early stage to determine admissibility.

Uploaded by

Angela Marie Almalbis
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

G.R. No. 154115.

November 29, 2005

PHILIP S. YU, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, Second Division, and VIVECA
LIM YU, respondents.

FACTS:

Viveca Yu brought an action against her husband, Philip Yu, for legal separation and
dissolution of conjugal partnership on the grounds of marital infidelity and physical abuse.

During trial, Viveca moved for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum and ad
testificandum to certain officers of Insular Life to compel production of the insurance
policy and application of a person suspected to be Philip's illegitimate child. The trial court
denied the motion and ruled that the insurance contract is inadmissible in evidence in view
of a circular issued by the Insurance Commission.

CA declared that Philip's objection to the admission of the documents was premature and
the trial court's pronouncement that the documents are inadmissible, precipitate. It ruled
that a trial court does not have the discretion to deny a party's privilege to tender excluded
evidence, as this privilege allows said party to raise on appeal the exclusion of such
evidence.

ISSUE: Whether or not a trial court has the discretion to deny Vivecas's motion to attach
excluded evidence to the record.

HELD: NO.

While trial courts have the discretion to admit or exclude evidence, such power is exercised
only when the evidence has been formally offered. For a long time, the Court has
recognized that during the early stages of the development of proof, it is impossible for a
trial court judge to know with certainty whether evidence is relevant or not, and thus the
practice of excluding evidence on doubtful objections to its materiality should be avoided.

In the instant case, the insurance application and the insurance policy were yet to be
presented in court, much less formally offered before it. In fact, Viveca was merely asking
for the issuance of subpoena duces tecum and subpoena ad testificandum when the trial
court issued the assailed Order. Even assuming that the documents would eventually be
declared inadmissible, the trial court was not then in a position to make a declaration to
that effect at that point. Thus, it barred the production of the subject documents prior to
the assessment of its probable worth. As observed by petitioners, the assailed Order was
not a mere ruling on the admissibility of evidence; it was, more importantly, a ruling
affecting the proper conduct of trial.
In declaring that the documents are irrelevant and inadmissible even before they were
formally offered, much less presented before it, the trial court acted in excess of its
discretion.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy