tabuena vs ca -d

G.R. No. 85423 May 6, 1991JOSE TABUENA, petitioner, vs.COURT OF APPEALS an EM!L!ANO TABERN!LLA, JR., respondents. Facts:The subject of the dispute is a parcel of residential land consisting of about 440 square meters andsituated in Poblacion, Maato, !lan. "n #$%&, an action for recover' of o(nership thereof (as filedin the )egionalTrial*ourt of !lan b' the estate of !lfredo Tabernilla against +ose Tabuena, theherein petitioner. !fter trial, judgment (as rendered in favor of the plaintiff and the defendant (asrequired to vacate the disputed lot.Tabuena appealed to the respondent court, complaining that, in arriving at its factualfindings, thetrial court motu proprio too cogni,ance of -.hibits /!/, /0/ and /*/, (hich had been mared b' theplaintiff butnever formall' submitted in evidence.The trialcourtalso erred (hen, to resolve theo(nershipof thesubject lot, it consideredtheproceedingsinanother caseinvolvingthesameparties but a different parcel of land."ssue: 1hether or not the evidence presented is alread' offered evidence23eld: 4o.)ule #&5 of the )ules of *ourt provides in 6ection &7 thereof as follo(s:6ec. &7. Offer of evidence.8The court shall consider no evidence (hich has not been formall' offered. The purpose for (hich the evidence is offered must be specified.The mere fact that a particular document is mared as an e.hibit does not mean it has thereb' alread' been offered as part of the evidence of a part'. "t is true that -.hibits /!,/ /0/ and /*/ (ere mared at the pre9trial of the case belo(, but this (as onl' for the purpose of identif'ing them at that time. The' (ere not b' such maring formall' offered as e.hibits. !s (e said in Interpacific Transit, Inc. vs. Aviles, 3 /!t the trial on the merits, the part' ma' decide to formall' offer :the e.hibits; if itbelieves the' (ill advance its cause, and then again it ma' decide not to do so at all. "n the latter event, such documents cannot be considered evidence, nor can the' be given an' evidentiar' value./The respondent court also held that the trial court committed no reversible error in taing judicial notice of Tabuena