Scribd
Upload
267 views3 pages

CONSTANTINO VS CA - Evidence Case Digest

The case involved a disputed land sale between petitioner Nelia Constantino and respondents Aurora Roque, Priscilla Luna, and Josefina Austria, who were heirs of Josefa Torres. Constantino claimed to have purchased a 250 square meter parcel from the heirs, but the heirs disputed the transaction. They argued the land area was larger than agreed and included another parcel occupied by others. The lower court ruled in favor of the heirs, annulling the sale documents. On appeal, the Supreme Court upheld this decision, finding that Constantino had waived her right to formally offer evidence by failing to submit it within the required period.

Uploaded by

Maricris Galinggana
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
267 views3 pages

CONSTANTINO VS CA - Evidence Case Digest

The case involved a disputed land sale between petitioner Nelia Constantino and respondents Aurora Roque, Priscilla Luna, and Josefina Austria, who were heirs of Josefa Torres. Constantino claimed to have purchased a 250 square meter parcel from the heirs, but the heirs disputed the transaction. They argued the land area was larger than agreed and included another parcel occupied by others. The lower court ruled in favor of the heirs, annulling the sale documents. On appeal, the Supreme Court upheld this decision, finding that Constantino had waived her right to formally offer evidence by failing to submit it within the required period.

Uploaded by

Maricris Galinggana
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/ 3

NELIA A.

CONSTANTINO, PETITIONER,
VS. COURT OF APPEALS, AURORA S. ROQUE, PRISCILLA S. LUNA AND
JOSEFINA S. AUSTRIA, RESPONDENTS.

G.R. No. 116018 November 13, 1996

FACTS:

Josefa Torres died intestate leaving a parcel of land located at Balagtas,


Bulacan. Among her heirs are respondents Aurora S. Roque, Priscilla S. Luna
and Josefina S. Austria. Sometime in 1984, the heirs of Josefa Torres, as
vendors, and petitioner Nelia A. Constantino, as vendee, entered into a
contract to sell a parcel of land with a total land area of two hundred and fifty
(250) square meters. The lot, owned in common by the Torres heirs, is being
occupied by petitioners' mother and sister. An adjoining lot, also co-owned by
the heirs, is being occupied by spouses Severino and Consuelo Lim. Pursuant
to their agreement, the heirs authorized petitioner to prepare the necessary
Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Sale.

After having the document drafted, petitioner asked the heirs to affix their
signatures on the document. The heirs signed the document with the
understanding that respondent Aurora S. Roque, one of the heirs, would be
present when the latter would seek permission from the Bureau of Lands and
have the land surveyed.

However, without the participation of any of the Torres heirs, the property
was subsequently surveyed, subdivided and registered. Petitioner did not
furnish the heirs with copies of the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate
with Sale nor of the subdivision plan and the certificates of title. Upon
securing a copy of the deed from the Registry of Deeds, the respondents
learned that the area of the property purportedly sold to petitioner was much
bigger than that agreed upon by the parties. It already included the portion
being occupied by the spouses Severino and Consuelo Lim.
On 2 June 1986, private respondents sent a letter to petitioner demanding the
surrender to them of the deed of settlement and conveyance, the subdivision
plan and the certificates of title; but to no avail. Thus, respondents filed with
the Regional Trial Court of Bulacan an action for annulment of the deed and
cancellation of the certificates of title.

Petitioner controverted the allegations of respondents by presenting the Deed


of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Sale dated 10 October 1984 wherein
respondents agreed to divide and adjudicate among themselves the inherited
property. The trial court entertained serious doubts with respect to the
preparation and due execution of the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of
Estate with Sale, thus, it ordered the annulment and cancellation of the said
document including the title issued in favor of the petitioner. The CA affirmed
the decision.

On appeal, petitioner argues that the trial court should not have denied her
motion to admit formal offer of evidence merely on the basis of technicality
such as late filing.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the formal offer of evidence is deemed waived after failing to
submit it with the prescribed period.

Ruling: YES

The trial court was correct in holding that petitioner waived the right to
formally offer his evidence. A considerable lapse of time, about three (3)
months, had already passed before petitioner's counsel made effort to
formally offer his evidence. For the trial court to grant petitioner's motion to
admit her exhibits would be to condone an inexcusable laxity if not non-
compliance with a court order which, in effect, would encourage needless
delays and derail the speedy administration of justice.

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