Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 1

AHAG v CABILING

G.R. No. L-6029, February 21, 1911


18 Phil. 415

Facts
Hon. Cui, presiding judge of CFI, Leyte, ordered defendant to deliver the possession of land to
plaintiff and to pay the latter damages for its wrongful detention.
Now defendant appealed that he may bring a party necessary to his action and for his protection.

Issue
Can defendant present another witness?

Held
Yes because the oral proofs of both parties are scanty and somewhat vague and unsatisfactory. In
the new trial ordered by the SC, they held that care should be taken to make the proof clear and definite.
Thus:
When, in the course of the examination of a witness, an exhibit is presented to him by counsel
for any purpose, that exhibit should be specifically described and identified so that when the
evidence arrives here on appeal this court may know to what particular exhibit counsel and the
witness are referring in their question and answers. In several places in the evidence now before
us counsel and witness, in questions and answers, speak of and refer to exhibits without
identifying them. It is utterly impossible for us to know to what exhibits they were referring. As a
necessary consequence, such evidence is wholly worthless.

Moreover, when there is presented in evidence an exhibit written in any language other than
Spanish, if there is an appeal, that exhibit should be translated into Spanish by the official
interpreter of the court, or a translation should be agreed upon by the parties, and both original
and translation sent to this court. In the case before us there is an untranslated exhibit written in
the Visayan language.

The motion of defendant is granted because it will not prejudice plaintiff.

Вам также может понравиться