G.R. No. L-9340; March 21, 1916
MARGARITO PEÑALOSA LO INTONG, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ISIDORA JAMITO, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

FACTS:
The plaintiff, Margarito Peñalosa Lo Intong, filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Ambos Camarines to recover possession of three parcels of land and damages from the defendants, Isidora Jamito et al. The defendants, in their answer, denied the plaintiff’s allegations and asserted absolute ownership and peaceful possession of the land. During trial, the plaintiff presented oral and documentary evidence. The defendants presented only one witness. During this witness’s examination, the defendants’ attorney asked a single question: “To whom does the land belong?” The plaintiff’s counsel objected. The court sustained the objection and, without allowing the defendants to present further evidence, rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff, ordering the defendants to deliver possession of the land and pay damages. The defendants filed a motion for new trial, arguing they were deprived of the right to present evidence, but it was denied. They appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:
Whether the trial court committed a reversible error by not allowing the defendants to present evidence in support of the facts alleged in their answer.

RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court held that the defendants had a right to present all evidence they desired to support the allegations in their answer. The trial court’s conclusion that the defendants did not wish to present more proof was mistaken, as they immediately sought to present additional evidence upon the rendition of the adverse judgment. Without discussing the merits of the case, the Supreme Court annulled the judgment and remanded the record to the lower court with the directive to give the defendants an opportunity to present whatever germane proof they have and desire to present. No costs were awarded.