G.R. No. 155483; April 27, 2007
HEIRS OF PEDRO PASAG, et al., Petitioners, vs. Sps. LORENZO and FLORENTINA PAROCHA, et al., Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners filed a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Documents and Titles, Recovery of Possession and Ownership, Reconveyance, Partition and Damages against respondents. They claimed a share in three properties owned by respondents, alleging these formed part of the estate of their grandparents, Benito and Florentina Pasag. Petitioners asserted that Severino Pasag, respondents’ predecessor, fraudulently executed an affidavit of self-adjudication claiming to be the sole heir, thereby excluding the other seven siblings, and used this to appropriate the properties and transfer titles.
After petitioners rested their case, the trial court granted them ten days to formally offer their documentary exhibits. They failed to do so and were granted multiple extensions, yet consistently failed to submit the formal offer. Consequently, the trial court, in its June 17, 1999 Order, deemed petitioners to have waived their right to make a formal offer. Their subsequent motion for admission of the offer was denied for “consistent failure.”

ISSUE

The primary issue is the propriety of the trial court’s: (1) declaration of waiver of petitioners’ offer of documentary evidence due to their failure to formally offer it within the granted periods; and (2) consequent grant of respondents’ demurrer to evidence and dismissal of the Complaint.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the rulings of the lower courts. On the waiver of evidence, the Court emphasized that under Section 34, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, the court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. The purpose is to allow the trial judge to understand the purpose of the evidence and enable the opposing party to object to its admissibility. The rule is not trivial; failure to make a formal offer within a considerable period constitutes a waiver. Petitioners’ repeated failures to submit their offer despite granted extensions justified the trial court’s order deeming the right waived. Their documentary evidence was therefore properly excluded.
With the excluded evidence, petitioners failed to substantiate their allegations of fraud and ownership. A demurrer to evidence tests the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s evidence. Upon its grant, the case is decided on the merits based on the evidence presented by the plaintiff. Since petitioners’ documentary evidence was excluded for lack of a formal offer, only their oral testimony remained, which the Court found insufficient to establish a preponderance of evidence for their claims. The trial court correctly granted the demurrer to evidence, and the Court of Appeals committed no error in affirming the dismissal. The negligence of counsel binds the client, and remanding the case was unwarranted.