Bienvenido Cadalin vs POEA - Dec 5 1994 - Full text w/ Digest
09 Aludos vs. Suerte - Digest
2
Case 9 : ALUDOS vs. SUERTE (G.R. No. 165285, June 18, 2012) Facts: In Jan. 1969, Lomises Aludos acquired leasehold rights from the Baguio City Gov’t over two stalls in the Hangar Market as evidenced by a permit issued by the City Treasurer. On Sept. 8, 1984, Lomises entered into an agreement with Johnny M. Suerte for the transfer of all improvements and rights over the two market stalls for P260,000. Lomises backed out of the agreement and returned the payments already received from Johnny amounting to P68,000. Johnny sued him for specific performance with damages before the RTC but the latter nullified the agreement between them for failure to secure the consent of the Baguio City Government. Lomises appealed to the CA claiming that the real agreement was merely a loan not a sale which was rejected by CA. CA ruled that the assignment of leasehold rights was void but the sale of the improvements was valid. On motion for reconsideration, Lomises contended that no valid sale of the improvements could be made because the lease contract dated May 1, 1985 between him and Baguio City Government, supposedly marked as Exh. A, provided that all improvements shall ipso facto become properties of the City of Baguio. CA denied the motion after finding that his lawyer misrepresented Exh. A as the lease contract when in fact it was merely a permit issued by the City Treasurer and that the lease contract dated May, 1 1985 was never formally offered in evidence and could thus not be considered pursuant to the rules of evidence. Hence this petition for review on certiorari. Issue: Was the CA correct in not considering the lease contract as evidence? Held: YES, under Section 34, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, the court he court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. The offer of evidence is necessary because it is the duty of the court to rest its findings of fact and its judgment only and strictly upon the evidence offered by the parties. Unless and until admitted by the court in evidence for the purpose or purposes for which such document is offered, the same is merely a scrap of paper barren of probative weight. What was formally offered was the 1969
-
Upload
arlando-g-arlando -
Category
Documents
-
view
5 -
download
2
description
Rules on Evidence DigestFormal offer of EvidenceAludos vs. Suerte G.R. No. 165285, June 18, 2012
Transcript of 09 Aludos vs. Suerte - Digest
Case 9: ALUDOS vs. SUERTE (G.R. No. 165285, June 18, 2012)
Facts:
In Jan. 1969, Lomises Aludos acquired leasehold rights from the Baguio City Gov’t over two stalls in the Hangar Market as evidenced by a permit issued by the City Treasurer.
On Sept. 8, 1984, Lomises entered into an agreement with Johnny M. Suerte for the transfer of all improvements and rights over the two market stalls for P260,000.
Lomises backed out of the agreement and returned the payments already received from Johnny amounting to P68,000.
Johnny sued him for specific performance with damages before the RTC but the latter nullified the agreement between them for failure to secure the consent of the Baguio City Government.
Lomises appealed to the CA claiming that the real agreement was merely a loan not a sale which was rejected by CA. CA ruled that the assignment of leasehold rights was void but the sale of the improvements was valid.
On motion for reconsideration, Lomises contended that no valid sale of the improvements could be made because the lease contract dated May 1, 1985 between him and Baguio City Government, supposedly marked as Exh. A, provided that all improvements shall ipso facto become properties of the City of Baguio.
CA denied the motion after finding that his lawyer misrepresented Exh. A as the lease contract when in fact it was merely a permit issued by the City Treasurer and that the lease contract dated May, 1 1985 was never formally offered in evidence and could thus not be considered pursuant to the rules of evidence.
Hence this petition for review on certiorari.
Issue: Was the CA correct in not considering the lease contract as evidence?
Held: YES, under Section 34, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, the court he court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. The offer of evidence is necessary because it is the duty of the court to rest its findings of fact and its judgment only and strictly upon the evidence offered by the parties. Unless and until admitted by the court in evidence for the purpose or purposes for which such document is offered, the same is merely a scrap of paper barren of probative weight. What was formally offered was the 1969 permit, which only stated that Lomises was permitted to occupy a stall in the Baguio City market and nothing else. In other words, no evidence was presented and formally offered showing that any and all improvements in the market stalls shall be owned by the Baguio City Government.
