Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 1

Case 9: ALUDOS vs. SUERTE (G.R. No.

165285, June 18, 2012)


Facts:

In Jan. 1969, Lomises Aludos acquired leasehold rights from the Baguio City
Govt over two stalls in the Hangar Market as evidenced by a permit issued
by the City Treasurer.
On Sept. 8, 1984, Lomises entered into an agreement with Johnny M. Suerte
for the transfer of all improvements and rights over the two market stalls for
P260,000.
Lomises backed out of the agreement and returned the payments already
received from Johnny amounting to P68,000.
Johnny sued him for specific performance with damages before the RTC but
the latter nullified the agreement between them for failure to secure the
consent of the Baguio City Government.
Lomises appealed to the CA claiming that the real agreement was merely a
loan not a sale which was rejected by CA. CA ruled that the assignment of
leasehold rights was void but the sale of the improvements was valid.
On motion for reconsideration, Lomises contended that no valid sale of the
improvements could be made because the lease contract dated May 1, 1985
between him and Baguio City Government, supposedly marked as Exh. A,
provided that all improvements shall ipso facto become properties of the City
of Baguio.
CA denied the motion after finding that his lawyer misrepresented Exh. A as
the lease contract when in fact it was merely a permit issued by the City
Treasurer and that the lease contract dated May, 1 1985 was never formally
offered in evidence and could thus not be considered pursuant to the rules of
evidence.
Hence this petition for review on certiorari.

Issue: Was the CA correct in not considering the lease contract as evidence?
Held: YES, under Section 34, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, the court he court shall
consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. The offer of evidence is
necessary because it is the duty of the court to rest its findings of fact and its
judgment only and strictly upon the evidence offered by the parties. Unless and
until admitted by the court in evidence for the purpose or purposes for which such
document is offered, the same is merely a scrap of paper barren of probative
weight. What was formally offered was the 1969 permit, which only stated that
Lomises was permitted to occupy a stall in the Baguio City market and nothing else.
In other words, no evidence was presented and formally offered showing that any
and all improvements in the market stalls shall be owned by the Baguio City
Government.