Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 121027 July 31, 1997 CORAZON DEZOLLER TISON a ! RENE R. DEZOLLER, petitioners, vs. COURT O" APPEALS a ! TEODORA DOMINGO, respondents.

REGALADO, J.: he present appeal b! certiorari see"s the reversal of the #ud$%ent rendered b! respondent Court of &ppeals on 'une (), *++, 1 -hich affir%ed the Order of Dece%ber (, *++. issued b! the Re$ional rial Court of /ue0on Cit!, 1ranch +2, $rantin$ herein private respondent3s De%urrer to Plaintiff3s Evidence filed in Civil Case No. /4224*),5 pendin$ therein. he present appellate revie- involves an action for reconve!ance filed b! herein petitioners a$ainst herein private respondent before the Re$ional rial Court of /ue0on Cit!, 1ranch +2, doc"eted as the aforesaid Civil Case No. /4224*),5, over a parcel of land -ith a house and apart%ent thereon located at San 6rancisco del Monte, /ue0on Cit! and -hich -as ori$inall! o-ned b! the spouses Martin 7uerrero and eodora De0oller 7uerrero. It appears that petitioners Cora0on ison and Rene De0oller are the niece and nephe-, respectivel!, of the deceased eodora De0oller 7uerrero -ho is the sister of petitioner3s father, 8er%o$enes De0oller. eodora De0oller 7uerrero died on March ,, *+2( -ithout an! ascendant or descendant, and -as survived onl! b! her husband, Martin 7uerrero, and herein petitioners. Petitioners3 father, 8er%o$enes, died on October (, *+9(, hence the! see" to inherit fro% eodora De0oller 7uerrero b! ri$ht of representation. he records reveal that upon the death of eodora De0oller 7uerrero, her survivin$ spouse, Martin, e:ecuted on Septe%ber *,, *+2; an &ffidavit of E:tra#udicial Settle%ent 2 ad#udicatin$ unto hi%self, alle$edl! as sole heir, the land in dispute -hich is covered b! ransfer Certificate of itle No. ;;22;, as a conse<uence of -hich ransfer Certificate of itle No. (,2)95 -as issued in the na%e of Martin 7uerrero. On 'anuar! ., *+22, Martin 7uerrero sold the lot to herein private respondent eodora Do%in$o and thereafter, ransfer Certificate of itle No. (95)*. -as issued in the latter3s na%e. Martin 7uerrero died on October .,, *+22. Subse<uentl!, herein petitioners filed an action for reconve!ance on Nove%ber ., *+22, clai%in$ that the! are entitled to inherit one4half of the propert! in <uestion b! ri$ht of representation. &t the pre4trial conference, the follo-in$ issues -ere presented b! both parties for resolution= >*? -hether or not the plaintiffs >herein petitioners? are the nephe- and niece of the late eodora De0oller@

>.? -hether or not the plaintiffs are entitled to inherit b! ri$ht of representation fro% the estate of the late eodora De0oller@ >(? -hether or not defendant >herein private respondent? %ust reconve! the reserved participation of the plaintiffs to the estate of the late eodora De0oller under Section 5, Rule 95 of the Rules of Court -hich -as dul! annotated on the title of the defendant@ >5? -hether or not the plaintiffs are entitled to da%a$es, %oral and e:e%plar!, plus attorne!3s fees for the -illful and %alicious refusal of defendant to reconve! the participation of plaintiffs in the estate of eodora De0oller, despite de%ands and "no-in$ full! -ell that plaintiffs are the niece and nephe- of said deceased@ and
>,? -hether or not the sub#ect propert! no- in liti$ation can be considered as con#u$al propert! of the spouses Martin 7uerrero and eodora De0oller 7uerrero. 3

Durin$ the hearin$, petitioner Cora0on De0oller ison -as presented as the lone -itness, -ith the follo-in$ docu%entar! evidence offered to prove petitioners3 filiation to their father and their aunt, to -it= a fa%il! picture@ baptis%al certificates of eodora and 8er%o$enes De0oller@ certificates of destro!ed records of birth of eodora De0oller and 8er%o$enes De0oller@ death certificates of 8er%o$enes De0oller and eodora De0oller 7uerrero@ certification of destro!ed records of live birth of Cora0on and Rene De0oller@ #oint affidavits of Pablo Ver0osa and Meliton Sit#ar attestin$ to the parents, date and place of birth of Cora0on and Rene De0oller@ #oint affidavit of 'uliana Caria$a and Manuela Caria$a attestin$ to the fact of %arria$e bet-een Martin 7uerrero and eodora De0oller@ and the %arria$e certificate of Martin and eodora 7uerrero. # Petitioners thereafter rested their case and sub%itted a -ritten offer of these e:hibits to -hich a Co%%ent $ -as filed b! herein private respondent. Subse<uentl!, private respondent filed a De%urrer to Plaintiff3s Evidence on the $round that petitioners failed to prove their le$iti%ate filiation -ith the deceased eodora 7uerrero in accordance -ith &rticle *9. of the 6a%il! Code. It is further averred that the testi%on! of petitioner Cora0on De0oller ison re$ardin$ her relationship -ith her alle$ed father and aunt is self4servin$, uncorroborated and inco%petent, and that it falls short of the <uantu% of proof re<uired under &rticle *9. of the 6a%il! Code to establish filiation. &lso, the certification issued b! the Office of the Aocal Civil Re$istrar of 8i%a%a!lan, Ne$ros Occidental is %erel! proof of the alle$ed destruction of the records referred to therein, and the #oint affidavit e:ecuted b! Pablo Ver0osa and Meliton Sit#ar certif!in$ to the date, place of birth and parenta$e of herein petitioners is inad%issible for bein$ hearsa! since the affiants -ere never presented for cross4e:a%ination. % On Dece%ber (, *++., the trial court issued an order $rantin$ the de%urrer to evidence and dis%issin$ the co%plaint for reconve!ance. 7 In upholdin$ the dis%issal, respondent Court of &ppeals declared that the docu%entar! evidence presented b! herein petitioners, such as the baptis%al certificates, fa%il! picture, and #oint affidavits are all inad%issible and insufficient to prove and establish filiation. 8ence, this appeal. Be find for petitioners. he bone of contention in private respondent3s de%urrer to evidence is -hether or not herein petitioners failed to %eet the <uantu% of proof re<uired b! &rticle *9. of the 6a%il! Code to establish le$iti%ac! and filiation. here are t-o points for consideration before us= first is the issue

on petitioner3s le$iti%ac!, and second is the <uestion re$ardin$ their filiation -ith eodora De0oller 7uerrero. I. It is not debatable that the docu%entar! evidence adduced b! petitioners, ta"en separatel! and independentl! of each other, are not per se sufficient proof of le$iti%ac! nor even of pedi$ree. It is i%portant to note, ho-ever, that the rulin$s of both lo-er courts in the case are basicall! pre%ised on the erroneous assu%ption that, in the first place, the issue of le$iti%ac! %a! be validl! controverted in an action for reconve!ance, and, in the second place, that herein petitioners have the onus probandi to prove their le$iti%ac! and, corollaril!, their filiation. Be disa$ree on both counts. It see%s that both the court a quo and respondent appellate court have re$rettabl! overloo"ed the universall! reco$ni0ed presu%ption on le$iti%ac!. here is no presu%ption of the la- %ore fir%l! established and founded on sounder %oralit! and %ore convincin$ reason than the presu%ption that children born in -edloc" are le$iti%ate. &&nd -ell settled is the rule that the issue of le$iti%ac! cannot be attac"ed collaterall!. he rationale for these rules has been e:plained in this -ise= he presu%ption of le$iti%ac! in the 6a%il! Code . . . actuall! fi:es a civil status for the child born in -edloc", and that civil status cannot be attac"ed collaterall!. he le$iti%ac! of the child can be i%pu$ned onl! in a direct action brou$ht for that purpose, b! the proper parties, and -ithin the period li%ited b! la-. he le$iti%ac! of the child cannot be contested b! -a! of defense or as a collateral issue in another action for a different purpose. he necessit! of an independent action directl! i%pu$nin$ the le$iti%ac! is %ore clearl! e:pressed in the Me:ican Code >&rticle ((,? -hich provides= C he contest of the le$iti%ac! of a child b! the husband or his heirs %ust be %ade b! proper co%plaint before the co%petent court@ an! contest %ade in an! other -a! is void.C his principle applies under our 6a%il! Code. &rticles *9) and *9* of the code confir% this vie-, because the! refer to Cthe action to i%pu$n the le$iti%ac!.C his action can be brou$ht onl! b! the husband or his heirs and -ithin the periods fi:ed in the present articles. Dpon the e:piration of the periods provided in &rticle *9), the action to i%pu$n the le$iti%ac! of a child can no lon$er be brou$ht. he status conferred b! the presu%ption, therefore, beco%es fi:ed, and can no lon$er be <uestioned. he obvious intention of the la- is to prevent the status of a child born in -edloc" fro% bein$ in a state of uncertaint! for a lon$ ti%e. It also ai%s to force earl! action to settle an! doubt as to the paternit! of such child, so that the evidence %aterial to the %atter, -hich %ust necessaril! be facts occurrin$ durin$ the period of the conception of the child, %a! still be easil! available. ::: ::: :::
Onl! the husband can contest the le$iti%ac! of a child born to his -ife. 8e is the one directl! confronted -ith the scandal and ridicule -hich the infidelit! of his -ife produces@ and he should decide -hether to conceal that infidelit! or e:pose it, in vie- of the %oral and econo%ic interest involved. It is onl! in e:ceptional cases that his heir are allo-ed to contest such le$iti%ac!. Outside of these cases, none E even his heirs E can i%pu$n le$iti%ac!@ that -ould a%ount to an insult to his %e%or!. 9

he issue, therefore, as to -hether petitioners are the le$iti%ate children of 8er%o$enes De0oller cannot be properl! controverted in the present action for reconve!ance. his is aside, of course, fro% the further consideration that private respondent is not the proper part! to i%pu$n the le$iti%ac! of herein petitioners. he presu%ption conse<uentl! continues to operate in favor of petitioners unless and until it is rebutted. Even assu%in$ that the issue is allo-ed to be resolved in this case, the burden of proof rests not on herein petitioners -ho have the benefit of the presu%ption in their favor, but on private respondent -ho is disputin$ the sa%e. his fact alone should have been sufficient cause for the trial court to e:ercise appropriate caution before actin$, as it did, on the de%urrer to evidence. It -ould have deli%ited the issues for resolution, as -ell as the ti%e and effort necessitated thereb!. Ordinaril!, -hen a fact is presu%ed, it i%plies that the part! in -hose favor the presu%ption e:ists does not have to introduce evidence to establish that fact, and in an! liti$ation -here that fact is put in issue, the part! den!in$ it %ust bear the burden of proof to overthro- the presu%ption. 10 he presu%ption of le$iti%ac! is so stron$ that it is clear that its effect is to shift the burden of persuasion to the part! clai%in$ ille$iti%ac!. 11 &nd in order to destro! the presu%ption, the part! a$ainst -ho% it operates %ust adduce substantial and credible evidence to the contrar!. 12 Bhere there is an entire lac" of co%petent evidence to the contrar!, 13 and unless or until it is rebutted, it has been held that a presu%ption %a! stand in lieu of evidence and support a findin$ or decision. 1# Perforce, a presu%ption %ust be follo-ed if it is uncontroverted. his is based on the theor! that a presu%ption is prima facieproof of the fact presu%ed, and unless the fact thus established prima facie b! the le$al presu%ption of its truth is disproved, it %ust stand as proved. 1$ Indubitabl!, -hen private respondent opted not to present countervailin$ evidence to overco%e the presu%ption, b! %erel! filin$ a de%urrer to evidence instead, she in effect i%pliedl! ad%itted the truth of such fact. Indeed, she overloo"ed or disre$arded the evidential rule that presu%ptions li"e #udicial notice and ad%issions, relieve the proponent fro% presentin$ evidence on the facts he alle$ed and such facts are thereb! considered as dul! proved. II. he -ei$ht and sufficienc! of the evidence re$ardin$ petitioner3s relationship -ith eodora De0oller 7uerrero, -hose estate is the sub#ect of the present controvers!, re<uires a %ore intensive and e:tensive e:a%ination. Petitioners3 evidence, as earlier e:plained, consists %ainl! of the testi%on! of Cora0on De0oller ison, the baptis%al, death and %arria$e certificates, the various certifications fro% the civil re$istrar, a fa%il! picture, and several #oint affidavits e:ecuted b! third persons all of -hich she identified and e:plained in the course and as part of her testi%on!. he pri%ar! proof to be considered in ascertainin$ the relationship bet-een the parties concerned is the testi%on! of Cora0on De0oller ison to the effect that eodora De0oller 7uerrero in her lifeti%e, or so%eti%e in *+5;, cate$oricall! declared that the for%er is eodora3s niece. 1% Such a state%ent is considered a declaration about pedi$ree -hich is ad%issible, as an e:ception to the hearsa! rule, under Section (+, Rule *() of the Rules of Court, sub#ect to the follo-in$ conditions= >*? that the declarant is dead or unable to testif!@ >.? that the declarant be related to the person -hose pedi$ree is the sub#ect of in<uir!@ >(? that such relationship be sho-n b! evidence other than the declaration@ and >5? that the declaration -as %ade ante litem motam, that is, not onl! before the co%%ence%ent of the suit involvin$ the sub#ect %atter of the declaration, but before an! controvers! has arisen thereon.

here is no dispute -ith respect to the first, second and fourth ele%ents. Bhat re%ains for anal!sis is the third ele%ent, that is, -hether or not the other docu%ents offered in evidence sufficientl! corroborated the declaration %ade b! eodora De0oller 7uerrero in her lifeti%e re$ardin$ the pedi$ree of petitioner Cora0on De0oller ison or, if at all, it is necessar! to present evidence other than such declaration. &%erican #urisdiction has it that a distinction %ust be %ade as to -hen the relationship of the declarant %a! be proved b! the ver! declaration itself, or b! other declarations of said declarant, and -hen it %ust be supported b! evidence aliunde. he rule is stated thus=
One situation to be noted is that -here one see"s to set up a clai% throu$h, but not fro%, the declarant and to establish the ad%issibilit! of a declaration re$ardin$ clai%ant3s pedi$ree, he %a! not do b! declarant3s o-n state%ents as to declarant3s relationship to the particular fa%il!. he reason is that declarant3s declaration of his o-n relationship is of a self4servin$ nature. &ccordin$l! there %ust be precedent proof fro% other sources that declarant is -hat he clai%ed to be, na%el!, a %e%ber of the particular fa%il!@ other-ise the re<uire%ent to ad%issibilit! that declarant3s relationship to the co%%on fa%il! %ust appear is not %et. 1ut -hen the part! clai%in$ see"s to establish relationship in order to clai% directl! fro% the declarant or the declarant3s estate, the situation and the polic! of the la- applicable are <uite different. In such case the declaration of the decedent, whose estate is in controversy, that he was related to the one who claims his estate, is admissible without other proof of the fact of relationship . Bhile the nature of the declaration is then disservin$, that is not the real $round for its ad%ission. Such declarations do not derive their evidential value fro% that consideration, althou$h it is a useful, if not an artificial, aid in deter%inin$ the class to -hich the declarations belon$. he distinction -e have note is sufficientl! apparent@ in the one case the declarations are self4servin$, in the otherthey are competent from reasons of necessity. 17 >E%phasis ours.?

he $eneral rule, therefore, is that -here the part! clai%in$ see"s recover! a$ainst a relative co%%on to both clai%ant and declarant, but not fro% the declarant hi%self or the declarant3s estate, the relationship of the declarant to the co%%on relative %a! not be proved b! the declaration itself. here %ust be so%e independent proof of this fact. 1& &s an e:ception, the re<uire%ent that there be other proof than the declarations of the declarant as to the relationship, does not appl! -here it is sou$ht to reach the estate of the declarant hi%self and not %erel! to establish a ri$ht throu$h his declarations to the propert! of so%e other %e%ber of the fa%il!. 19 Be are sufficientl! convinced, and so hold, that the present case is one instance -here the $eneral re<uire%ent on evidence aliunde %a! be rela:ed. Petitioners are clai%in$ a ri$ht to part of the estate of the declarant herself. Confor%abl!, the declaration %ade b! eodora De0oller 7uerrero that petitioner Cora0on is her niece, is ad%issible and constitutes sufficient proof of such relationship, not-ithstandin$ the fact that there -as no other preli%inar! evidence thereof, the reason bein$ such declaration is rendered co%petent b! virtue of the necessit! of receivin$ such evidence to avoid a failure of #ustice. 20 More i%portantl!, there is in the present case an absolute failure b! all and sundr! to refute that declaration %ade b! the decedent. 6ro% the fore$oin$ dis<uisitions, it %a! thus be safel! concluded, on the sole basis of the decedent3s declaration and -ithout need for further proof thereof, that petitioners are the niece and nephe- of eodora De0oller 7uerrero. &s held in one case, 21 -here the sub#ect of the declaration is the declarant3s o-n relationship to another person, it see%s absurb to re<uire, as a foundation for the ad%ission of the declaration, proof of the ver! fact -hich the declaration is offered to establish. he preli%inar! proof -ould render the %ain evidence unnecessar!.

&ppl!in$ the $eneral rule in the present case -ould nonetheless produce the sa%e result. 6or -hile the docu%entar! evidence sub%itted b! petitioners do not strictl! confor% to the rules on their ad%issibilit!, -e are ho-ever of the considered opinion that the sa%e %a! be ad%itted b! reason of private respondent3s failure to interpose an! ti%el! ob#ection thereto at the ti%e the! -ere bein$ offered in evidence. 22 It is ele%entar! that an ob#ection shall be %ade at the ti%e -hen an alle$ed inad%issible docu%ent is offered in evidence, 23 other-ise, the ob#ection shall be treated as -aived, 2# since the ri$ht to ob#ect is %erel! a privile$e -hich the part! %a! -aive. 2$ &s e:plained in Abrenica vs. Gonda, et al., 2% it has been repeatedl! laid do-n as a rule of evidence that a protest or ob#ection a$ainst the ad%ission of an! evidence %ust be %ade at the proper ti%e, other-ise it -ill be dee%ed to have been -aived. he proper ti%e is -hen fro% the <uestion addressed to the -itness, or fro% the ans-er thereto, or fro% the presentation of the proof, the inad%issibilit! of the evidence is, or %a! be inferred. hus, a failure to e:cept to the evidence because it does not confor% -ith the statute is a -aiver if the provisions of the la-. hat ob#ection to a <uestion put to a -itness %ust be %ade at the ti%e the <uestion is as"ed. &n ob#ection to the ad%ission of evidence on the $round of inco%petenc!, ta"en after the testi%on! has been $iven, is too late. 27 hus, for instance, failure to ob#ect to parol evidence $iven on the stand, -here the part! is in a position to ob#ect, is a -aiver of an! ob#ections thereto. 2& he situation is a$$ravated b! the fact that counsel for private respondent unreservedly crossexamined petitioners, as the lone witness, on the documentary evidence that were offered . &t no ti%e -as the issue of the supposed inad%issibilit! thereof, or the possible basis for ob#ection thereto, ever raised. Instead, private respondent3s counsel elicited ans-ers fro% the -itness on the circu%stances and re$ularit! of her obtention of said docu%ents= he observations later %ade b! private respondent in her co%%ent to petitioners3 offer of e:hibits, althou$h the $rounds therefor -ere alread! apparent at the ti%e these docu%ents -ere bein$ adduced in evidence durin$ the testi%on! of Cora0on De0oller ison but -hich ob#ections -ere not ti%el! raised therein, %a! no lon$er serve to rectif! the le$al conse<uences -hich resulted therefro%. 8ence, even assu%in$ ex gratia argumenti that these docu%ents are inad%issible for bein$ hearsa!, but on account of herein private respondent3s failure to ob#ect thereto, the sa%e %a! be ad%itted and considered as sufficient to prove the facts therein asserted. 29 &ccordin$l!, the Certificate of Marria$e >E:hibit S? -herein it is indicated that the parents of eodora De0oller are Isabelo De0oller and Cecilia Calpo, as -ell as the Certificates of 1aptis% of eodora De0oller 30 >E:hibit 8? and 8er%o$enes De0oller >E:hibit '? -hich both reflect the na%es of their parents as Isabelo De0oller and Cecilia Calpo, to sho- that 8er%o$enes De0oller is the brother of eodora De0oller 7uerrero@ and the Death Certificate of 8er%o$enes De0oller >E:hibit F? the entries -herein -ere %ade b! petitioner Cora0on De0oller ison as his dau$hter, to$ether -ith the 'oint &ffidavits of Pablo Ver0osa and Meliton Sit#ar >E:hibits N and P?, to prove that herein petitioners are the children of 8er%o$enes De0oller E these can be dee%ed to have sufficientl! established the relationship bet-een the declarant and herein petitioners. his is in consonance -ith the rule that a prima facie sho-in$ is sufficient and that onl! sli$ht proof of the relationship is re<uired. 31 6inall!, it %a! not be a%iss to consider as in the nature of circu%stantial evidence the fact that both the declarant and the clai%ants, -ho are the sub#ect of the declaration, bear the surna%e De0oller. 32 III. he follo-in$ provisions of the Civil Code provide for the %anner b! -hich the estate of the decedent shall be divided in this case, to -it=

&rt. +9,. Bhen children of one or %ore brothers or sisters of the deceased survive, the! shall inherit fro% the latter b! representation, if the! survive -ith their uncles or aunts. 1ut if the! alone survive, the! shall inherit in e<ual portions. &rt. ++,. In the absence of le$iti%ate descendants and ascendants, and ille$iti%ate children and their descendants, -hether le$iti%ate or ille$iti%ate, the survivin$ spouse shall inherit the entire estate, -ithout pre#udice to the ri$hts of brothers and sisters, nephe-s and nieces, should there be an!, under &rticle *))*. &rt. *))*. Should brothers and sisters or their children survive -ith the -ido- or -ido-er, the latter shall be entitled to one4half of the inheritance and the brothers and sisters or theirs children to the other half. Dpon the death of eodora De0oller 7uerrero, one4half of the sub#ect propert! -as auto%aticall! reserved to the survivin$ spouse, Martin 7uerrero, as his share in the con#u$al partnership. &ppl!in$ the afore<uoted statutor! provisions, the re%ainin$ half shall be e<uall! divided bet-een the -ido-er and herein petitioners -ho are entitled to #ointl! inherit in their o-n ri$ht. 8ence, Martin 7uerrero could onl! validl! alienate his total undivided three4fourths >(G5? share in the entire propert! to herein private respondent. Resultantl!, petitioners and private respondent are dee%ed co4o-ners of the propert! covered b! ransfer Certificate of itle No. (95)*. in the proportion of an undivided one4fourth >*G5? and three4fourths >(G5? share thereof, respectivel!. &ll told, on the basis of the fore$oin$ considerations, the de%urrer to plaintiff3s evidence should have been, as it is hereb!, denied. Nonetheless, private respondent %a! no lon$er be allo-ed to present evidence b! reason of the %andate under Section * of revised Rule ( of the Rules of Court -hich provides that Cif the %otion is $ranted but on appeal the order of dis%issal is reversed he shall be dee%ed to have -aived the ri$ht to present evidence.C 33 B8ERE6ORE, the <uestioned #ud$%ent of respondent Court of &ppeals is hereb! REVERSED and SE &SIDE, and herein petitioners and private respondent are declared co4o-ners of the sub#ect propert! -ith an undivided one4fourth >*G5? and three4fourths >(G5? share therein, respectivel!. SO ORDERED. Romero, Puno and endo!a, ""#, concur#

$orres, "r#, "#, is on leave# "oo' o'() * Penned b! &ssociate 'ustice 7loria C. Paras, -ith &ssociate 'ustices /uirino &bad Santos, 'r. and Delilah Vidallon Ma$tolis, concurrin$@ &nne: F@ Petition, Rollo, 95. . &nne: 1, id.@ ibid., 5*. ( Ori$inal Record, .)94.)2. 5 Ibid., ..54..+. , Ibid., .((4.(5.

; Ibid., .,+4.;9. 9 Ibid., .9,. 2 'ones, Co%%entaries on Evidence, Vol. *, .nd ed., **24**+. + olentino, &., Civil Code of the Philippines, Co%%entaries and 'urisprudence, Vol. *, *++) ed., ,(,4,(9. *) %p. cit., ,(,. ** 'ones on Evidence, Vol. *, ,th ed., *92. *. +, &AR 22(. *( (*& C'S, Evidence, Sec. **5, *+,. *5 Ibid., Sec. **+, .*;. *, 1ra-sell vs. indall, .+5 SB .d ;2,. *; SN, 6ebruar! *5, *++., ,42. *9 'ones, Co%%entaries on Evidence, Vol. (, .nd ed., .)+54.)+,. *2 %p. cit., .)+;. *+ %p. cit., .)+2. .) In re Clar"3s Estate, **) P 2.2. .* 8art%an3s Estate, *)9 P *),, cited in Moran, Co%%ents on the Rules of Court, Vol. ,, *+2) ed., (... .. On offer of evidence, the Rules of Court pertinentl! provide= CSec. (,. Bhen to %a"e offer. E . . . Docu%entar! and ob#ect evidence shall be offered after the presentation of a part!3s testi%onial evidence. Such offer shall be done orall! unless allo-ed b! the Court to be done b! -ritin$. CSec. (;. Ob#ection. E Ob#ection to evidence offered orall! %ust be %ade i%%ediatel! after the offer is %ade. Ob#ection to a <uestion propounded in the course of the oral e:a%ination of a -itness shall be %ade as soon as the $rounds therefor shall beco%e reasonabl! apparent.C .( Martin, Rules of Court, Vol. ,, (rd ed., ;**.

.5 People vs. De la Cru0, 7.R. No. *)2*2), 6ebruar! 2, *++5, ..+ SCR& 9,5. ., Moran, Co%%ents on the Rules of Court, Vol. ;, *+2) ed., *.,. .; (5 Phil. 95, >*+*;?. .9 Conlu vs. &raneta, et al., *, Phil. (29 >*+*)?. .2 &ee alosi$ vs. Vda. De Nieba, et al., 7.R. No. A4.+,,9, 6ebruar! .+, *+9., 5( SCR& 59.. .+ %p cit., *.2. () his parochial record is an official docu%ent, havin$ been %ade prior to the passa$e of 7.O. No. ;2 and &ct No. *+) >D.S. vs. Evan$elista, .+ Phil. .*, >*+*,?, and cases therein cited?. (* 6ul"erson, et al vs. 8ol%es, et al., **9 DS (2+. (. 6rancisco, Rules of Court, Vol. 9, *+9( ed., 5+5. (( his a%endator! provision under the *++9 Rules of Civil Procedure, -hich too" effect on 'ul! *, *++9, is substantiall! the sa%e as the antecedent provision in Sec. *, Rule (,= C8o-ever, if the %otion is $ranted and the order of dis%issal is reversed on appeal, the %ovant loses his ri$ht to present evidence in his behalf.C