Scribd
Upload
1K views

Proffer of Evidence

This document is a proffer of evidence from plaintiffs in the civil case Heirs of Felisa and Publio Cano vs. Heirs of Alfredo Quintos. The plaintiffs are requesting that Exhibit K, an affidavit of affirmation from their predecessor-in-interest Agustin Estrada, be admitted into evidence and made part of the record for purposes of appeal. Exhibit K is relevant to establish the plaintiffs' adverse possession and just title over the subject lot. As a notarized public document, a certified copy can be admitted under exceptions to the best evidence rule for documents in custody of a public officer. The plaintiffs pray that their proffer of evidence be given due course.

Uploaded by

Abidz Bridge Rae Abad
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
1K views

Proffer of Evidence

This document is a proffer of evidence from plaintiffs in the civil case Heirs of Felisa and Publio Cano vs. Heirs of Alfredo Quintos. The plaintiffs are requesting that Exhibit K, an affidavit of affirmation from their predecessor-in-interest Agustin Estrada, be admitted into evidence and made part of the record for purposes of appeal. Exhibit K is relevant to establish the plaintiffs' adverse possession and just title over the subject lot. As a notarized public document, a certified copy can be admitted under exceptions to the best evidence rule for documents in custody of a public officer. The plaintiffs pray that their proffer of evidence be given due course.

Uploaded by

Abidz Bridge Rae Abad
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT


11th Judicial Region
Branch 27
Tandag City, Surigao del Sur

HEIRS OF FELISA AND PUBLIO CIVIL CASE NO. 188


CANO, REPRESENTED
BYBECCA C. ENALDO For:
Plaintiffs, RECONVEYANCE,

-versus-

HEIRS OF ALFREDO QUINTOS;


Defendants,

X------------------------------------------/

PROFFER OF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFFS, through the undersigned counsel and unto this
Honorable Court, most respectfully aver – THAT:

1. On October 22, 2019, in compliance to the Honorable Court’s


process, plaintiffs submitted the Certified True copies of
Exhibits “D”, “I” and “M”, except Exhibit “K”;

2. On November 18, 2019, the Honorable Court issued an Order


admitting Exhibits “D”, “I”, and “M”, taking into consideration
the relevance of these exhibits to the issue of possession , which
in turn is pertinent to the issue of fraud in the registration of the
land. However, Exhibit “K” was not admitted as it is a mere
photocopy;

3. Exhibit “K” pertains to the Affidavit of Affirmation executed


by Agustin Estrada, the predecessor-in-interest of the
plaintiffs, which is relevant and substantial to establish the
adverse possession and just title of the plaintiffs over the
subject lot;

4. Thus, in consideration of this, the plaintiffs respectfully request


for the attachment of this excluded evidence to be made part of
the record for purposes of appeal pursuant to Section 40 of
Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, to wit:
Sec. 40. Tender of excluded evidence. – If
documents or things offered in evidence are
excluded by the court, the offeror may have the
same attached to or made part of the record. If the
evidence excluded is oral, the offeror may state for
the record the name and other personal
circumstances of the witness and the substance of
the proposed testimony.

5. Under Rule 130 Section 7 in relation to Section 3 of the Rules of


Court,

“Evidence admissible when original document is a


public record. — When the original of document is in the
custody of public officer or is recorded in a public office, its
contents may be proved by a certified copy issued by the
public officer in custody thereof.”;

6. Pursuant to the above-cited provision, secondary evidence is


admissible in lieu of the original as an exception to the Best
Evidence Rule when the original is a public record in the
custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office;

7. Exhibit “K” is a notarized document, all documents


acknowledged by a notary public and certified to by him are
considered public documents in this jurisdiction, a notary
public is considered public officer and his official acts are
received as evidence, not only in his own, but in all countries.1

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the above proffer of


evidence of the Plaintiffs be duly noted and given due course.

Other just and equitable reliefs are also prayed for.

Respectfully submitted.

Tago (For Tandag City), Surigao del Sur. __________ , 2020.

1
ATTY. DANNY L. DIAZ
Roll No.
IBP No.
Davao City
PTR No:
Davao del Norte
MCLE Compliance No.

You might also like