ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 137579. June 14, 1999]

SPS. AUDIE ARNADO vs. LOURDES ROSAROSO

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 14, 1999.

G.R. No. 137579 (Sps. Audie and Caroline Arnado vs. Lourdes Rosaroso.)

In this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, petitioners ask the Court to declare as admissible evidence they introduced for the first time on appeal and decide the ejectment case in their favor. Petitioners assail the Decision1 [Annex A; Rollo, pp. 19-32.] of the Court of Appeals dated 13 August 1998, and its Resolution2 [Annex B. Rollo, p. 33.] dated 27 January 1999.

Respondent Rosaroso is the owner of the house subject of the ejectment case, while petitioners Arnado spouses are the occupants. Respondent filed an ejectment case in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities and obtained a decision ordering petitioners to vacate the house. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court reversed the decision of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities and restored petitioners in possession on the basis of evidence introduced by then petitioners for the first time on appeal tending to show that they had purchased the house from respondent.

Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court issued its challenged Decision dated 13 August 1998 reversing the Regional Trial Court. According to said court, "the only issue [wa]s whether or not the RTC committed an error in admitting the exhibits/evidence which were introduced by the [petitioners] [for] the first time only on appeal."3 [CA Decision dated 13 August 1998, p. 7; Rollo, p. 25.]

The Court of Appeals rules that the evidence introduced by petitioners in the Regional Trial Court for the first time on appeal should not have been admitted. It also made a factual finding that petitioners' claim that they purchased the house was untrue. The appellate court then issued its challenged Resolution dated 27 January 1999 denying petitioners' motion for reconsideration. Hence, this petition.

The petition raises questions which are too unsubstantial raises questions which are too unsubstantial to require consideration by the Court.

Of the eight issues raised by petitioners, only four are legal issues. The rest are factual issues not cognizable in this petition under Rule 45. The four legal issues tend to support petitioners' position that the evidence they introduced in the Regional Trial Court for the first time on appeal should be admitted because they were denied their right to present such evidence in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities.

However, the Court of Appeals made a factual finding that petitioners were not denied their right to present evidence in the first level court. The appellate court found that the Municipal Trial Court in Cities issued an order directing the parties to submit their respective position papers ten (10) days from receipt.4 [Ibid.] Said court also found that:

Despite receipt by the [petitioners] of a copy of the Order requiring submission of a position paper, as early as August 22, 1987, they did not submit any, nor any evidence or documentary exhibits, before the court, precisely the court rendered a judgment but taking into account only [respondent's] position paper, together with her documentary exhibits or evidence.5 [Ibid, at 4; Rollo, p. 22.]

Anent the admissibility of evidence introduced only on appeal, the Court of Appeals reiterated the rule that evidence not formally offered before the trial court cannot be considered on appeal, citing the case of Servicewide Specialists, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals.6 [257 SCRA 643 (1996) per Puno, J.] We agree with the conclusion of the Court of Appeals that petitioners' evidence should not have been considered by the Regional Trial Court.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, we Resolved to DENY the petition.

The Court further Resolved to CHANGE the title of the case to "Sps. Audie and Caroline Arnado vs. Lourdes Rosaroso.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE