Evidence PART II CITY OF MANILA VS.

GARCIA Facts: Expansion of Epifanio de los Santos Elementary School There were informal settlers (IS) on the property contiguous to the school. IS refused to vacate property. City of Manila filed a suit to recover possession over the land RTC FAVORED PLAINTIFF. The plaintiff presented the certification of the Chairman on Appropriations of the Municipal Board which stated that P100,00.00 had been set aside in Ordinance No. 4566 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITIONAL BUILDING OF THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. Said document WAS ORIGINALLY DEEMED INADMISSIBLE but was SUBSEQUENTLY ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE BY THE RTC.

ISSUE: WON the lower court can take judicial notice of Ordinance No. 4566

HELD: Courts may alter its ruling while the case is within its power. Even if the certification was not presented as evidence, the trial judge was duty bound to TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE of Ordinance 4566. The CITY CHARTER OF MANILA requires that all courts sitting therein must take judicial notice of all ordinances passed by the municipal board of Manila.

BAGUIO VS. VDA. DE JALAGAT Facts: Gabriel Baguio filed a case for quieting of title to real property against Teofila Jalagat and her minor children.

The latter filed a motion to dismiss because the present complaint is barred by a previous judgment rendered by the same court. The lower court DISMISSED the case res judicata

Issue: WON the lower court was correct in finding that there was res judicata by taking judicial notice of its previous judgment

Held: Yes. The lower court CAN take judicial notice of the finality of judgment in a case that was previously decided by it. Courts can take judicial notice of previous cases to determine WON the case pending is a moot one or WON a previous ruling is applicable in the case under consideration.

PRIETO VS. ARROYO Facts: Zeferino Arroyo and Gabriel Prieto were registered owners of ADJOINING LOTS in Camarines Sur. Zeferino died heirs had a new COT registered in their names Zefeinos Heirs discovered that the technical description on their TCOT and in the original COT DID NOT MATCH with that embodied in the decision of the land registration court it was less in area by 157 sqm They filed a petition for the correction of description in their titles granted Gabriel Prieto filed a petition to annul the order he claimed that the 157 sqm were unduly taken from his lot WAS DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE He then filed a 2ND PETITION WITH SIMILAR ALLEGATIONS dismissed res judicata He claimed that no parole evidence was needed to support his claim because the matters alleged therein were part of the land registration proceedings which were well within the judicial notice of the court

Issue:

WON the trial court erred in not taking judicial notice of the records of the land registration proceedings that would have supported Gabriels allegations

Held: GR: Courts are not authorized of judicial notice in the: Adjudication of cases pending before them Contents of other cases

(Even if pending before the same court and the same judge) If Gabriel wanted the court to take judicial notice of such records he should have presented the proper request or manifestation to that effect.

YAO-KEE VS. SY-GONZALES Facts: Sy Kiat Chinese national left real and personal properties in Phils Aida Sy-Gonzales and the other children of Sy with Asuncion Gillego FILED A PETITION FOR SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE Yao Kee opposed claiming she is the legitimate wife Probate court sustained validity of her marriage to Sy. CA reversed. ruled that their marriage was not proven to be valid under Chinese laws Yao claimed that the CA should have taken judicial notice of the Chinese laws on marriage showing the validity of her marriage

Issue: WON the CA should take judicial notice of foreign laws Held: No. To establish a valid foreign marriage prove the ff: existence of a foreign law as a question of fact the alleged foreign marriage by CONVINCING EVIDENCE Courts CANNOT take judicial notice of foreign laws or customs They must be alleged and proven as any other fact.

TABUENA VS. CA Facts: Action of recovery of ownership filed by estate of Tabernilla against Tabuena Land sold to Tabernilla by Juan Peralta Jr. the latter requested that his mother be allowed to stay on the property until her death After she died, Tabuena took over the possession of the said property Tabuenas defense: the land sold to Tabernilla was of a different lot RTC and CA rejected Tabuenas claim that the evidence Tabernilla offered had been marked but was not formally offered in evidence

Issues: 1. WON it was proper for the RTC and CA to take cognizance of exhibits not formally offered in trial 2. WON the RTC erred in taking judicial notice of Tabuenas testimony in a case it had previously heard which was closely connected to the present case Held: 1. No. The mere fact that a document is marked as an exhibit does not mean it has been offered as part of evidence of a party. It is during trial that the party presenting the marked evidence decides WON to offer the evidence. Exceptions: Evidence even if not offered can be admitted against an adverse party if: a) it had been duly identified by testimony duly recorded b) it had been incorporated in the records of the case 2. Yes. GR: Courts are not authorized of judicial notice in the: Adjudication of cases pending before them Contents of other cases

(Even if pending before the same court and the same judge) Exceptions: a) In the absence of objection b) With the knowledge of the opposing party

c) At the request or with the consent of the parties SC ruled in favor of Tabuena.

BPI SAVINGS VS. CTA Facts: Claim for tax refund by BPI BPI filed a written claim for refund with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue BPI also filed a petition for review before CTA CTA dismissed BPI failed to present as evidence its Corporate Annual ITR for 1990 to establish that it hadnt credited the amount of P297,492.00 to its 1990 income tax liability Before the SC, petitioner called the attention of the court to CTA Case No. 4897 where the Tax Court held that petitioner suffered a net loss for the taxable year 1990

Issue: WON the court may take judicial notice of the Decision by the CTA in deciding the present case? Held: GR: Courts are not authorized of judicial notice in the: Adjudication of cases pending before them Contents of other cases

(Even if pending before the same court and the same judge) However, Sec 2 of Rule 129 states that courts may take judicial notice of matters ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions.X