HEIRS

OF

SAVES V. HEIRS

OF

SAVES

G.R. NO. 152866

6 OCTOBER 2010
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Facts:
Sometime in January 1921, Severo Chaves and Benedicta Chaves
instituted an action before the Court of First Instance (CFI) of
Oriental Negros for Lot No. 382 to be titled in their names,
together with Escolastico Saves, Maximo Saves, Romana Saves,
Rafaela Saves, and Januaria Saves.
On 22 April 1921, the CFI issued a Decision awarding Lot No. 382
in six equal shares to the siblings Benedicta, Escolastico, Romana,
Rafaela, Januaria, and Maximo, all surnamed Saves.
As Romana and Maximo were already deceased, the CFI
adjudicated their respective shares to their children.
Also on 22 April 1921, a decree was issued ordering the
registration of Lot No. 382 in the names of Benedicta, Escolastico,
the children of Romana, Rafaela, Januaria, and the children of
Maximo.
On 21 June 1941, the heirs of Januaria sold their 1/6 share in Lot
No. 382 to a Gaudencia Valencia (Valencia).
On 30 June 1941, the heirs of Romana, the sole heir of Rafaela
Saves, and the sole heir of Escolastico sold their respective 1/6
share in Lot No. 382, to Valencia.
On 6 June 1947, Benedicta and the sole heir of Maximo, sold their
respective 1/6 share in Lot No. 382, to Valencia.
Having acquired all the shares in Lot No. 382, Valencia initiated
the titling of the said property under her name, and consequently,
Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 148 in her name.
Sometime in 1961, Valencia sold the property to her grandchild
Enriqueta Chavez Abella (Abella), as a result of which, TCT No.
110 was issued in the name of Abella.
On 17 March 17, 1981, a case for Reconveyance, Partition, and
Damages was filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Negros
Oriental by the heirs of Escolastico, alleging, inter alia, that Lot
No. 382 was fraudulently acquired by Valencia, and that she
fictitiously sold the lot to Abella.
The RTC ruled in favor of the heirs of Escolastico, but the Court of
Appeals (CA) reversed its decision.
Issue: Whether or not Exhibits 7, 8 and 13, which were not
formally offered as evidence by the heirs Benedicta, Romana,
Rafaela, Januaria, and Maximo in the trial court subject to judicial

notice by the CA for the purpose of utilizing the same as basis for
the reversal of the trial courts decision.
Held: Yes.
Ratio:
It is a basic procedural rule that the court shall consider no
evidence which has not been formally offered.
In People v. Napat-a, citing People v. Mate, the Supreme Court
relaxed the foregoing rule and allowed evidence not formally
offered to be admitted and considered by the trial court provided
the following requirements are present: (1) the same must have
been duly identified by testimony duly recorded and (2) the same
must have been incorporated in the records of the case.
In the case at bar, the records would show that the above
requisites have been satisfactorily complied with respect to
Exhibit 7, which is a document entitled Motion for the Issuance
of Transfer Certificate of Title filed by Valencia in the same trial
court that led to the issuance of TCT No. 148 since the records
show that it is the same document Fruto Rosario, witness for the
heirs Benedicta, Romana, Rafaela, Januaria, and Maximo,
identified in his testimony.
Verily, Exhibit 7 was incorporated and made part of the records
of this case as a common exhibit of the parties.
Likewise, Exhibit 13, which is TCT No. 110, complies with the
requirements enunciated in Napat-a and Mate, since the records
show that the same was identified by Abella during the
continuation of her direct examination.
Moreover, Exhibit 13 was included in the records that was
elevated to the CA and the appellate court correctly noted
Abellas testimony regarding this document in resolving the
motion for reconsideration of the heirs Benedicta, Romana,
Rafaela, Januaria, and Maximo.
The existence of Exhibit 13 was not only known to the heirs
Benedicta, Romana, Rafaela, Januaria, and Maximo, but it was
expressly alleged in their Appellees Brief filed with the CA and
their Petition for Review filed with the Supreme Court that Lot No.
382 is registered in the name of respondent Abella.
The heirs Benedicta, Romana, Rafaela, Januaria, and Maximo did
not merely acknowledge the existence of TCT No. 110, but in fact
relied upon it in order to put forward their main theory that the
sale from Valencia to Abella is fictitious or void because,
according to them, it appears from the said title that Abella was
supposedly only nine years old at the time of the transaction.

 Verily, it is inconsistent for the heirs Benedicta, Romana, Rafaela,

Januaria, and Maximo to claim that Exhibit 13 proves its theory
and in the same breath assail it as inadmissible.
The objection by the heirs Benedicta, Romana, Rafaela, Januaria,
and Maximo with regard to Exhibit 8 hardly deserves any credit
as it is a rather innocuous document which has no bearing on any
of the significant issues in this case.