3D SPECPRO DIGESTS
Emilio dela Paz vs IAC | Gutierrez, Jr, J
G.R. No. 71537, September 17, 1987|
FACTS
 Loreto de la Paz filed a complaint against the petitioners for a
judicial declaration of ownership of a 43,830 square meter
parcel of land covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 901 in
the name of Ponciano de la Paz
 Loreto alleged that the subject parcel of land was among the
properties adjudicated to her and her mother as a result of a
partition submitted by the heirs of Ponciano de la Paz and
approved by the court in Civil Case No. 1399.
 The subject matter of Civil Case No. 1399 was Ponciano's
testate estate.
 In their answer, the petitioners denied that the disputed lot was
among the properties adjudicated to Loreto and her mother.
They claimed that the parcel of land was not accounted for in
the probate proceedings but is actually community property of
the parties.
 The parties, except for petitioner Enrique de la Paz, were
admittedly compulsory heirs of Ponciano de la Paz who died in
1916
 Loreto was the only legitimate child of Ponciano
 As regards petitioner Enrique de la Paz, Loreto denied his claim
that he is one of the heirs of Ponciano. The petitioners, however,
allege that he is also a compulsory heir of Ponciano, he being
the son of Ponciano de la Paz, Jr., the eldest child of the
decedent.
 Loreto took the witness stand. She finished her direct testimony
on March 12, 1984.
 On April 25, 1984, the petitioners' counsel began his cross-
examination of Loreto. The cross-examination was, however, not
completed.
 The petitioners' counsel moved in open court for the
continuance of the cross-examination on the ground that he still
had to conduct a lengthy cross-examination.
 On May 18, 1984, Loreto's counsel filed a motion for "correction
of transcript" due to some errors in the transcript of
stenographic notes taken during the direct testimony of Loreto.
The motion was granted.
 This order granting the correction prompted the petitioners''
counsel to manifest that he would not be able to undertake the
cross-examination of the witness as scheduled. The trial court
postponed the trial of the case to May 31, 1984 and later to July
5, and 11, 1984
 Trial resumed. The petitioners' counsel, however, asked for still
another postponement of the cross-examination to give him a
chance to go over the stenographic notes.
 During the scheduled trial on September 14, 1984, neither the
petitioners, nor their counsel appeared despite due notice.
Loreto's counsel, therefore, filed a motion that she be allowed
to present evidence ex parte before a commissioner.
 Despite this development, the petitioners upon their motion
were allowed to cross-examine Loreto.
 On the scheduled hearing however, the petitioners' counsel
failed to appear, and the cross-examination of Loreto was
deferred for the fourth time.
 Finally, on November 7, 1984, the petitioners' counsel resumed
his repeatedly postponed cross-examination of Loreto. The
cross-examination was, however, cut short and rescheduled
again on motion of the petitioners' counsel.
 Unfortunately, Loreto died on December 1, 1984. An amended
complaint was filed for the purpose of substituting the
respondents as heirs of Loreto
 The petitioners moved verbally to strike off the record the
entire testimony of Loreto. The motion was denied. Thus, they
filed a petition before the IAC, however the same was also
denied.
 The petitioners contend that the appellate committed grave
abuse of discretion when it sanctioned the trial court's orders
which denied the striking out of the testimony of original
plaintiff Loreto de la Paz from the record.
ISSUES & ARGUMENTS
 W/N petitioners were deprived of their right to cross
examination when the court denied their motion to strike
off the record, the testimony of Loreto
HOLDING & RATIO DECIDENDI
NO.
 Well settled is the rule that the right of a party to confront and
cross-examine opposing witnesses in a judicial litigation, be it
criminal or civil in nature, or in proceedings before
administrative tribunals with quasi-judicial powers, is a
fundamental right which is part of due process.
Page 1 of 2
 3D SPECPRO DIGESTS
 The right of a party to cross-examine the witness of his
adversary in invaluable as it is inviolable in civil cases, no less
than the right of the accused in criminal cases. The express
recognition of such right of the accused in the Constitution does
not render the right thereto of parties in civil cases less
constitutionally based, for it is an indispensable part of the due
process guaranteed by the fundamental law. ... Until such cross-
examination has been finished, the testimony of the witness
cannot be considered as complete and may not, therefore, be
allowed to form part of the evidence to be considered by the
court in deciding the case.
 But also, it is ruled that it is not an absolute right which a party
can demand at all times.
 The right is a personal one which may be waived expressly or
impliedly by conduct amounting to a renunciation of the right of
cross-examination. Thus, where a party has had the opportunity
to cross-examine a witness but failed to avail himself of it, he
necessarily forfeits the right to cross-examine and the
testimony given on direct examination of the witness will be
received or allowed to remain in the record.
 In the case at bar, the petitioners' failure to cross-examine
Loreto was through no fault of the respondents. As can be
gleaned from the record, Loreto was available for cross-
examination from the time she finished her direct testimony on
March 12, 1984
 The petitioners not only kept on postponing the cross-
examination but at times failed to appear during scheduled
hearings.
 The postponement of the trial on May 23, 1984 to a later date
due to the correction of the stenographic notes of Loreto's
testimony may be justified, but the same cannot be said for the
subsequent postponements requested by the petitioners.
 Under these circumstances, we rule that the petitioners had
waived their right to cross-examine Loreto. Through their own
fault, they lost their right to cross-examine Loreto. Her
testimony stands.

Page 2 of 2