G.R. No. L-26746 October 27, 1983
JUSTO ALCARAZ, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellees, vs. RICARDO RACIMO and CLEOTILDE RACIMO, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

The plaintiffs-appellees (children of Maria Racimo) and defendants-appellants (children of Donato Racimo) are the grandchildren and co-heirs of the spouses Romualdo Racimo and Petrona Acacio. The disputed parcels of land were purchased by the spouses in 1890. Petrona Acacio secured an Informacion Posesoria title after Romualdo’s death. The evidence showed that after Petrona’s death, the owner’s share of the harvest from the land was divided between the two family branches, with management handled by Ricardo Racimo (defendant) and Cuadrato Alcaraz (plaintiff). In 1950, the defendants refused to give the plaintiffs their share of the harvest, prompting this suit for partition. The defendants claimed that Petrona had executed a document (Exhibit I) in 1902 donating the land to Ricardo Racimo in gratitude for financial support, with ownership to take effect upon her death.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the trial court committed reversible error in its procedural handling of the case, particularly in denying a postponement, declaring the case submitted for decision without the defendants completing their evidence, and subsequently reconsidering its order dismissing the plaintiffs’ amended complaint.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the defendants’ assignments of error. On procedure, the trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion for postponement and considering the case submitted. The case had been pending for over thirteen years, and counsel had almost a month’s notice of the hearing date. The court’s action was justified to prevent further delay. Crucially, after the denial, the defendants’ counsel refused to formally offer their identified exhibits, including the critical Exhibit I (the alleged deed of donation), into evidence. Under Rule 132, Section 35 of the Rules of Court, the court cannot consider evidence not formally offered. The defendants’ strategy to withhold formal offer and later incorporate the documents in the record on appeal was a procedural misstep not sanctioned by the rules. Consequently, the alleged donation could not be considered, leaving the plaintiffs’ evidence of co-ownership and long-standing sharing of harvests unrebutted, which amply supported the order for partition. Furthermore, the trial court acted within its discretion in reconsidering its order that had dismissed the plaintiffs’ amended complaint for late filing, as courts have the inherent power to correct their own orders before finality to serve the ends of justice.