View full case

ESCOLASTICA MONTESCLAROS SON v. CARMELINO SON

FACTS:

The case involves a dispute over the ownership of a piece of land between the petitioners, who are the heirs of Anastacio Son, and the private respondents. The petitioners claim ownership based on a Deed of Absolute Sale dated November 5, 1957, executed by Pedro Son. On the other hand, the private respondents argue that the Deed of Absolute Sale is simulated and forged.

Initially, the trial court declared the Deed of Absolute Sale null and void and ordered the petitioners to return a portion of the land to the private respondents. However, the trial court later reversed its decision after considering an earlier Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase dated December 17, 1951, which the petitioners relied on to assert their ownership of the land.

The private respondents appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals, which ruled that the Deed of Absolute Sale was indeed null and void. However, the Court of Appeals also held that the Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase cannot be admitted as evidence since it was not considered as an issue during the pre-trial conference.

In the present petition for review, the petitioners raised three main issues. Firstly, they question the non-admission of the Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase as evidence. Secondly, they contest the finding that the land covered by the Deed of Absolute Sale is part of the same land covered by the Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase. Lastly, they question the reliance on the strength of the evidence presented by the plaintiffs.

The Supreme Court finds merit in the petition and addresses the last issue first, emphasizing that the credibility of witnesses is best determined by the trial court.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the trial court and the appellate court erred in relying and capitalizing on the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the witnesses

  2. Whether private respondents' failure to object to the introduction of the 1951 Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase as evidence amounted to a waiver

  3. Whether the parties are bound by the delimitation of issues in the Pre-trial Order

  4. Whether the issue of the 1951 Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase was raised by the petitioner.

  5. Whether the private respondents impliedly consented to try the issue during the trial.

  6. Whether the identity of the property subject of the 1951 and 1957 deeds has been established.

  7. Whether or not a conviction for illegal possession of firearms and ammunition can be sustained based solely on the testimony of the arresting officers.

RULING:

  1. No, the trial court and the appellate court did not err in relying on the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the witnesses. The matter of giving credence to evidence is best addressed by the trial judge who is in a better position to appreciate the weight and evidentiary value of the testimonies of the witnesses who appeared before him.

  2. Yes, private respondents' failure to object to the introduction of the 1951 Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase as evidence amounted to a waiver. The determination of issues at a pre-trial conference bars the consideration of other questions on appeal, unless there are exceptional circumstances that warrant their admission.

  3. No, the parties are not bound by the delimitation of issues in the Pre-trial Order. The rules allow for the consideration of issues not raised in the pleadings if they are tried with the express or implied consent of the parties. Amendments to the pleadings may also be allowed to cause them to conform to the evidence and to raise these issues, even after judgment.

  4. Petitioner did raise the issue of the 1951 Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase in their answer to the original complaint filed by the private respondents.

  5. Private respondents impliedly consented to try the issue by not raising any objection when petitioner presented evidence regarding the 1951 Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase and when their own counsel cross-examined petitioner's witness regarding said document.

  6. The identity of the property subject of the 1951 and 1957 deeds has been established as the same property inherited by Pedro Son and Anastacio Son from their parents.

  7. Yes, a conviction for illegal possession of firearms and ammunition can be sustained based solely on the testimony of the arresting officers.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The determination of the weight and evidentiary value of testimonies of witnesses is best left to the trial judge.

  • The determination of issues at a pre-trial conference bars the consideration of other questions on appeal.

  • Exceptional circumstances may warrant the consideration of issues not raised in the pleadings.

  • Amendments to the pleadings may be allowed to cause them to conform to the evidence and to raise additional issues.

  • Failure to object to the introduction of evidence on a particular issue can be considered as implied consent to try said issue.

  • Parties are given the opportunity to present rebuttal or counter-evidence on an issue that has been raised during the trial.

  • The identity of the property can be established through the contents and descriptions provided in the executed deeds.

  • Testimonial evidence of arresting officers can be sufficient to establish guilt in cases of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition.