This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2009-10-27 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In addition, the free patents and OCTs were issued to respondent and her assignee on 10 December 2003. The MTCC promulgated its Decision in Civil Case No. 68-00 only on 3 May 2004. Respondent still had the opportunity to present the said free patents and OCTs before the MTCC, but failed to do so without any explanation. Therefore, said pieces of documentary evidence cannot be considered by the appellate court even for the purpose of determining the issue of prior possession. With the reality that those documents were never presented and formally offered during the trial in the court a quo, their belated admission for purposes of having them duly considered in the resolution of the case on appeal would certainly be in conflict with Section 34, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court,[38] which reads: SECTION 34. Offer of Evidence. - The court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. The purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specified. | |||||