Case Digest (G.R. No. 155483)
Facts:
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 v. Sps. Lorenzo and Florentina Parocha, Priscilla P. Abellera, and Maria Viloria Pasag, G.R. No. 155483, April 27, 2007, Supreme Court Second Division, Velasco Jr., J., writing for the Court.
Petitioners are several heirs (collectively, the Heirs) who filed a Complaint in the Urdaneta City Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 45 (Civil Case No. U-5743), for declaration of nullity of documents and titles, recovery of possession and ownership, reconveyance, partition and damages. They alleged that properties forming part of the estate of their grandparents, Benito and Florentina Pasag, were taken by their uncle Severino through an affidavit of self-adjudication that fraudulently excluded other heirs; Severino later sold some parcels (covered by OCT Nos. 2983 and 1887) to his daughter, respondent Florentina Parocha, and secured a free patent (OCT P-20607).
Respondents answered that the estate had been partitioned among the eight children, that the parcels were Bonifacio’s share later quitclaimed to Severino, and that Severino had been in possession since 1940 and lawfully obtained a free patent, rendering his title indefeasible.
Trial began March 19, 1996. Petitioners rested on March 9, 1999 and were given ten days to make their formal offer of documentary exhibits but failed to do so. They obtained extensions (including an April 19, 1999 grant to May 11, 1999 and a requested five-day extension) but repeatedly failed to file the formal offer. By June 17, 1999 the RTC deemed the offer waived; a July 27, 1999 motion to admit the offer was later denied on September 1, 1999 for “consistent failure” to submit it. Respondents then filed a demurrer to evidence (October 28, 1999). On February 24, 2000, the RTC granted the demurrer and dismissed the Complaint; a motion for reconsideration was...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did petitioners suffer deprivation of due process because of their counsel’s alleged gross negligence when the CA affirmed the RTC’s rulings?
- Was the RTC’s deeming of petitioners’ formal offer of evidence as waived and the dismissal of the Complaint on demurrer ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)