pasag vs. parocha.pdf - 550 Phil 571 SECOND DIVISION G.R No 155483 HEIRS OF PEDRO PASAG REPRESENTED BY EUFREMIO PASAG HEIRS OF MARIA PASAG REPRESENTED

pasag vs. parocha.pdf - 550 Phil 571 SECOND DIVISION G.R No...

This preview shows page 1 - 3 out of 8 pages.

550 Phil. 571 SECOND DIVISION [ G.R. No. 155483, April 27, 2007 ] HEIRS OF PEDRO PASAG, REPRESENTED BY EUFREMIO PASAG; HEIRS OF MARIA PASAG, REPRESENTED BY EPIFANIA LUMAGUI; HEIRS OF JUANITA PASAG, REPRESENTED BY ASUNCION ORTIOLA; HEIRS OF ISIDRO PASAG, REPRESENTED BY VIRGINIA P. MENDOZA; HEIRS OF BASILIO PASAG, REPRESENTED BY MILAGROSA P. NABOR; AND HEIRS OF FORTUNATA PASAG, REPRESENTED BY FLORENTINA S. MEMBRERE, PETITIONERS, VS. SPS. LORENZO AND FLORENTINA PAROCHA, PRISCILLA P. ABELLERA, AND MARIA VILORIA PASAG, RESPONDENTS. D E C I S I O N VELASCO JR., J.: The rule on formal offer of evidence is not a trivial matter. Failure to make a formal offer within a considerable period of time shall be deemed a waiver to submit it. Consequently, as in this case, any evidence that has not been offered shall be excluded and rejected. The Case The present Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 seeks the annulment of the February 15, 2002 Decision [1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 68544, and its September 6, 2002 Resolution [2] denying petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration. In effect, petitioners entreat this Court to nullify the February 24, 2000 Resolution of the Urdaneta City Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 45 in Civil Case No. U-5743, granting the demurrer to evidence filed by respondents and dismissing their Complaint, which ruling was upheld by the CA. The Facts The instant case arose from a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Documents and Titles, Recovery of Possession and Ownership, Reconveyance, Partition and Damages filed by petitioners at the Urdaneta City RTC of Pangasinan against respondents. Petitioners alleged a share over three (3) properties owned by respondents, which formed part of the estate of petitioners' deceased grandparents, Benito and Florentina Pasag. They averred that Benito and Florentina Pasag died intestate, thus, leaving behind all their properties to their eight (8) children Pedro, Isidro, Basilio, Severino, Bonifacio, Maria, Juanita, and Fortunata. However, Severino, the predecessor of respondents, claimed in an affidavit of self-adjudication that he is the sole, legal, and compulsory heir of Benito and Florentina Pasag. Consequently, he was able to appropriate to himself the properties covered
Image of page 1
by Original Certificates of Title (OCT) Nos. 2983 and 1887. Thereafter, Severino executed a deed of absolute sale over the said properties in favor of his daughter, respondent Florentina Parocha. Moreover, petitioners alleged that Severino used the same affidavit of self-adjudication to secure a free patent over an agricultural land that had long been under the possession of Benito and Florentina Pasag. In denying the material allegations in the Complaint, respondents averred in their Answer that the properties left behind by the spouses Benito and Florentina Pasag had already been partitioned among their eight (8) surviving children. They claimed that the parcels of land covered by OCT Nos.
Image of page 2
Image of page 3

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 8 pages?

  • Summer '17
  • Dean Almirante
  • Appellate court, Florentina Pasag

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture