G.R. NO. 137247 - ANATALIA B. RAMOS, VS. SPOUSES DOMINGO A. DIZON AND EDNA MEDINA DIZON.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the judgment appealed from, the same is hereby AFFIRMED. With costs against the appellant. [18] Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration was likewise resolved in favor of herein respondents. [19] Hence, this Petition raising the following issues for our consideration: AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT IN DISMISSING THE PETITION ALTHOUGH THE (SPOUSES) DIZON DID NOT PRESENT ANY EVIDENCE. AFFIRMING THE TRIAL COURT WHEN IT TOOK COGNIZANCE OF THE SPOUSES DIZON'S EVIDENCE WHICH WAS NOT FORMALLY OFFERED. APPLYING THE RELAXED RULE ENUNCIATED IN VDA. DE ONATE vs. COURT OF APPEALS CONSIDERING THAT THE QUESTIONED EXHIBITS WERE NOT PROPERLY IDENTIFIED AND WITHOUT ANY EXPLANATION OR RECITAL OF THE CONTENTS THEREOF NOR ANY OPPORTUNITY AFFORDED RAMOS TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE "WITNESS" IDENTIFYING THE SAME. AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT WHEN IT TOOK COGNIZANCE OF THE SPOUSES DIZON'S EVIDENCE WITHOUT, HOWEVER, ALLOWING RAMOS TO FILE HER COMMENT/OPPOSITION THERETO. AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT THAT ELPIDIO DIZON ADMITTED HAVING SPENT FOR HIS OWN PERSONAL ADVANTAGE AND BENEFIT THE AMOUNT OF P150,000.00. COROLLARY THERETO, FAILING TO RULE ON THE ISSUE AS TO THE VALIDITY OF THE SPA IN FAVOR OF ELPIDIO DIZON. HOLDING THAT EXHIBITS "3" AND "4" REVEAL THE REAL INTENT OF THE PARTIES WAS TO HAVE THE PROPERTY STAND AS SECURITY FOR THE DEBT, NOT OF THE OWNER DOMINGO DIZO, BUT HIS NEPHEW AND ATTORNEY-IN-FACT , ELPIDIO DIZON. HOLDING THAT THE CONSIDERATION OF THE "SALE" TO RAMOS WAS UNUSUALLY INADEQUATE RESULTING IN THE CONCLUSION THAT THE TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE PARTIES WAS AN EQUITABLE MORTGAGE. [20] The Petition mainly raises the questions of (1) whether the Court of Appeals erred in applying the rule enunciated in the case of Vda. De Oñate v. Court of Appeals [21] pertaining to the admission and consideration of evidence not formally offered, and (2) whether the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the trial court's ruling that the contract between petitioner and Elpidio was actually one of equitable mortgage and not a pacto de retro sale. Petitioner argues that it is axiomatic that the court shall not consider evidence which has not been formally offered. [22] In this regard, they argue that Exhibits "1" to "7," inclusive of sub-markings, should not have been considered by the trial court in its Decision considering that the same were not formally offered in evidence. To support this assertion, petitioner quotes from our following pronouncement in Interpacific Transit, Inc. v. Aviles [23] : It is instructive at this point to make a distinction between identification of documentary evidence and its formal offer as an exhibit. The first is done in the course of the trial and is accompanied by the marking of the evidence as an exhibit. The second is done only when the party rests its case and not before. The mere fact that a particular document is identified and marked as an exhibit does not mean it will