GR 73077; (December, 1995) (Digest)
G.R. No. 73077 December 29, 1995
ESCOLASTICA MONTESCLAROS SON, and HEIRS OF ANASTACIO SON, petitioners, vs. CARMELINO SON, TEOFISTA SON, PRIMITIVO SON, CIPRIANA SON, ANATALIA SON, LAREANO SON, GERARDA SON and THE HONORABLE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, respondents.
FACTS
Private respondents, heirs of Pedro Son, filed a complaint to annul a 1957 Deed of Absolute Sale over a 6,324-square-meter portion of land, claiming it was forged. Petitioners, heirs of Anastacio Son (Pedro’s brother), were in possession, claiming ownership under said deed. During pre-trial, the parties agreed to limit the issue to the validity of the 1957 deed. The trial court initially declared it void but, upon petitioners’ motion for reconsideration, reversed itself. Petitioners had argued for the first time in their motion that ownership was acquired via an earlier 1951 Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase, which Pedro failed to redeem. The trial court then dismissed the complaint. The Court of Appeals reversed, reinstating the annulment of the 1957 deed and ordering petitioners to return the land. It ruled that petitioners were barred from raising the 1951 deed issue, as it was not included in the pre-trial order delimiting issues, constituting unfair surprise.
ISSUE
Whether the defense based on the 1951 Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase, though not included in the pre-trial order, may be properly considered.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court’s final decision dismissing the complaint. The Court held that while pre-trial orders control the subsequent course of action, a liberal application of the rules is warranted to achieve substantial justice. The 1951 deed was formally offered in evidence without objection from private respondents, who even extensively cross-examined witnesses on it. This constituted a waiver of any objection to its presentation and a tacit amendment of the pre-trial issues. The purpose of pre-trial is to prevent surprise, but here, private respondents were not ambushed; they had full opportunity to confront the evidence. Moreover, the Court found the 1951 and 1957 deeds pertained to the same property inherited by Pedro. The variance in area and price was reasonably explained by petitioners due to familial concessions. Therefore, the defense was properly raised and established petitioners’ ownership, rendering the 1957 deed moot. The rules of procedure should not be rigidly applied to defeat substantive rights.