RULE 129

Land Bank of the Philippines v Banal
Spouses Vicente and Leonidas Banal, respondents, are the registered owners of 19.3422
hectares of agricultural land situated in San Felipe, Basud, Camarines Norte
A portion of the land was compulsorily acquired by the Department of Agrarian Reform
The Land Bank of the Philippines Landbank), petitioner, made a valuation of the property
Respondents rejected the above valuation. Thus, a summary administrative proceeding was
conducted before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) to determine the
valuation of the land. Eventually, the PARAD rendered its Decision affirming the
Landbank’s valuation.
Dissatisfied with the Decision of the PARAD, respondents filed with the Regional Trial
Court (RTC),
On the same day after the pre-trial, the court issued an Order dispensing with the hearing
and directing the parties to submit their respective memoranda.
In determining the valuation of the land, the trial court based the same on the facts
established in another case pending before it (Civil Case No. 6679, “Luz Rodriguez vs. DAR,
et al.”)
Landbank filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for review
CA: Affirmed RTC decision in toto
ISSUE: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the trial court’s valuation of the
land. As earlier mentioned, there was no trial on the merits.
HELD: Here, the RTC failed to observe the basic rules of procedure and the fundamental
requirements in determining just compensation for the property.
Firstly, it dispensed with the hearing and merely ordered the parties to submit their
respective memoranda. Such action is grossly erroneous
Secondly, the RTC, in concluding that the valuation of respondents’ property is
P703,137.00, merely took judicial notice of the average production figures in the Rodriguez
case pending before it and applied the same to this case without conducting a hearing

Judicial notice. they proceeded to the Talaga Footbridge. or on request of a party.and worse. when hearing necessary. may announce its intention to take judicial notice of any matter and allow the parties to be heard thereon. . The Court takes this occasion also to remind the bench and the bar that reclusion perpetua is not synonymous with life imprisonment.” (emphasis added) The RTC failed to observe the above provisions. The group was not able to reach the place because on their way. the court. On that particular day. FACTS: A group of public officials from various government agencies. They may only do so “in the absence of objection” and “with the knowledge of the opposing party. may take judicial notice of any matter and allow the parties to be heard thereon if such matter is decisive of a material issue in the case. the group headed to the Lincomo Elementary School to check on two of its classrooms. “After the trial. on its own initiative. does not affect the conviction of the appellant. People v Kulais The trial court’s erroneous taking of judicial notice of a witness’ testimony in another case. also pending before it. whose guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt by other clear. CASE: Five Informations for kidnapping for ransom and three Informations for kidnapping were filed before the Regional Trial Court of Zamboanga City. convincing and overwhelming evidence. Section 3. – During the trial. Joint trial on the merits ensued. both testimonial and documentary. they were stopped by nine (9) armed men who pointed their guns at them. and before judgment or on appeal. all the accused pleaded not guilty. without the knowledge or consent of the parties Well-settled is the rule that courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of the contents of the records of other cases even when said cases have been tried or are pending in the same court or before the same judge.” which are not obtaining here. organized themselves as a monitoring team to inspect government projects in Zamboanga City. thus: “SEC. 3. Rule 129 of the Revised Rules on Evidence is explicit on the necessity of a hearing before a court takes judicial notice of a certain matter. on its own initiative or on request of a party. the proper court. After inspecting the same. On their arraignment.

initiated cost-cutting measures. Melquiades Feliciano. Hence. After passing the six-month probation period. Defendant informed plaintiff of his termination Petitioner instituted a case for illegal dismissal before the Labor Arbiter. HELD: The appeal is bereft of merit. herein petitioner]. thereby.RTC: Guilty ISSUE: “The trial court erred in taking judicial notice of a material testimony given in another case by Lt. Unfortunately. plaintiff was not one of the twelve. His conviction was based mainly on the positive identification made by some of the kidnap victims Laureano v CA Sometime in 1978. Among the 17 excess Airbus pilots reviewed. Judicial Notice and Denial of Due Process Appellant Kulais argues that he was denied due process when the trial court took judicial notice of the testimony given in another case by one Lt. the complaint was withdrawn. plaintiff filed the instant case for damages due to illegal termination of contract of services before the court a quo . then Director of Flight Operations and Chief Pilot of Air Manila. However. who was the team leader of the government troops that captured him and his purported cohorts. 1979. who allegedly was the team leader of the government troops which allegedly captured the accused-appellants in an encounter. Appellant Kulais was not denied due process. applied for employment with defendant company Plaintiff accepted the offer and commenced working on January 20. that even if the court a quo did take judicial notice of the testimony of Lieutenant Feliciano. Melquiades Feliciano. hit by a recession. Defendant moved to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds. Before said motion was resolved. depriving the accused-appellants their right to cross-examine him. it did not use such testimony in deciding the cases against the appellant. he contends that the latter’s testimony should not be used against him. Thereafter. plaintiff's appointment was confirmed effective Defendant. Because he was allegedly deprived of his right to cross-examine a material witness in the person of Lieutenant Feliciano. twelve were found qualified. plaintiff [Menandro B. Laureano.

defendant postulates that Singapore laws should apply and courts thereat shall have jurisdiction. While the relief sought can no longer be granted. Maquiling v Comelec This Resolution resolves the Motion for Reconsideration filed by respondent. Instead. The trial court rightly ruled on the application of Philippine law. The term of office of the local officials elected in the May 2010 elections has already ended on June 30. The defendant has failed to do so. The defendant that claims the applicability of the Singapore Laws to this case has the burden of proof.Defendant’s contention: since plaintiff was employed in Singapore. Thus. he presented his accomplishments as the Mayor of Kauswagan. ruling on the motion for reconsideration is important as it will either affirm the validity of Arnado’s election or affirm that Arnado never qualified to run for public office. 2013. all other aspects of his employment contract and/or documents executed in Singapore. Lanao del Norte and reiterated that he has taken the Oath of Allegiance not only twice but six times. Therefore. Arnado. Respondent failed to advance any argument to support his plea for the reversal of this Court’s Decision dated April 16. RTC: In favor of plaintiff CA: In favor of defendant ISSUE: Whether or not Philippine laws apply HELD: At the outset. thus: "Neither can the Court determine whether the termination of the plaintiff is legal under the Singapore Laws because of the defendant's failure to show which specific laws of Singapore Laws apply to this case. has successfully finished his term of office. the Philippine law should be applied. the relevant question is the efficacy of his renunciation of his foreign citizenship ." Respondent Court of Appeals acquired jurisdiction when defendant filed its appeal before said court. However. therefore. we find it necessary to state our concurrence on the assumption of jurisdiction by the Regional Trial Court of Manila. As substantially discussed in the preceding paragraphs. Branch 9. On this matter. respondent court was correct when it barred defendant-appellant below from raising further the issue of jurisdiction. the Philippine Courts do not take judicial notice of the laws of Singapore. 2010.

while they were about to move out of the Guadalupe-EDSA southbound bus stop. Around 6:30 to 7:30 in the evening.a Abu Jackie or Zaky. In another exclusive interview on the network.” Mere reference to a foreign law in a pleading does not suffice for it to be considered in deciding a case. The two insisted on getting on the bus. The two immediately got off the bus and ran towards Ayala Avenue. the fact that he was still able to use his US passport after executing his Affidavit of Renunciation repudiates this claim. Asali then testified that the night before the Valentine's Day bombing. He then saw fire quickly engulfing the bus. and two other persons taught him how to make bombs and explosives. the bus conductor noticed two men running after the bus. Trinidad and Baharan got another two kilos of TNT from him . Respondent likewise contends that this Court failed to cite any law of the United States. The Court cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws. After being discharged as state witness. accused Trinidad gave ABS-CBN News Network an exclusive interview some time after the incident. respondent was divested of all the rights of an American citizen. the bus driver gave in and allowed the two passengers to alight. which must be presented as public documentsof a foreign country and must be “evidenced by an official publication thereof. He ran out of the bus towards a nearby mall. If indeed. Andales felt an explosion. accused Asali testified that while under training with the Abu Sayyaf in 2004. from its Navotas bus terminal towards its Alabang bus terminal via Epifanio de los Santos Avenue (EDSA).k.Respondent cites Section 349 of the Immigration and Naturalization Act of the United States as having the effect of expatriation when he executed his Affidavit of Renunciation of American Citizenship on April 3. so the conductor obliged and let them in. People v Baharan • • • • • An RRCG bus was plying its usual southbound route. 2009 and thus claims that he was divested of his American citizenship. Moments after. Rohmat. confessing his participation in the Valentine's Day bombing incident. The two sat away from each other Eventually. a. accused Baharan likewise admitted his role in the bombing incident. American law does not govern in this jurisdiction. As stipulated during pretrial.

restitution. as they are mandated by the rules to satisfy themselves that the accused had not been under coercion or duress. Imelda R. Republic v Sandiganbayan Republic of the Philippines. as stipulated by both accused during pretrial).. The Court further notes that prior to the change of plea to one of guilt. Ferdinand E. HELD: We have reiterated in a long line of cases that the conduct of a searching inquiry remains the duty of judges. the respondents) for reconveyance. reversion. and Potenciano Ilusorio (collectively. Considering the foregoing circumstances. Marcos. Marcos. Juan Ponce Enrile. Inc.multiple murder . Ferdinand R. accounting. Jr.one through an extrajudicial confession (exclusive television interviews. and damages before the Sandiganbayan. and the other via judicial admission (pretrial stipulation). Jr. Marcos.ISSUE: The trial court gravely erred in accepting accused-appellants' plea of guilt despite insufficiency of searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of the said plea. mistaken impressions. inter alia. The guilt of the accused Baharan and Trinidad was sufficiently established by these corroborating testimonies. 0009) against Jose L. effects. which shareholdings respondents Jose Africa and Manuel Nieto. This requirement is stringent and mandatory. held for themselves and. Jr. filed a complaint (docketed as Civil Case No. through their holdings and the corporations they organized. and consequences of their guilty plea. The Court observes that accused Baharan and Trinidad previously pled guilty to another charge . The petitioner alleged. Nieto. accused Baharan and Trinidad made two other confessions of guilt . coupled with their respective judicial admissions (pretrial stipulations) and extrajudicial confessions (exclusive television interviews. through the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG). 0130. Africa. (ETPI). that the respondents illegally manipulated the purchase of the major shareholdings of Cable and Wireless Limited in Eastern Telecommunications Philippines..based on the same act relied upon in the multiple frustrated murder charge. 0009 . with Civil Case No. among others. as they both stipulated during pretrial) that they were indeed the perpetrators of the Valentine's Day bombing. or a misunderstanding of the significance. Manuel H. The Sandiganbayan ordered the consolidation of Civil Case No. we deem it unnecessary to rule on the sufficiency of the "searching inquiry" in this instance.

Partly denied insofar as [the petitioner] prays therein to adopt the testimonies on oral deposition of Maurice V. (emphasis added) Partly Granted. Maurice V. Bane and Rolando Gapud as part of its evidence in Civil Case No. In the proceedings to resolve the Urgent Petition. 0009 WITNESSES TO BE PRESENTED AND A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THEIR TESTIMONIES (1) Maurice V. 0009. the petitioner filed an Urgent Motion and/or Request for Judicial Notice (2nd motion) dated February 21. 1999.The Sandiganbayan included the Urgent Petition in Civil Case No. 2000. and instead made its Formal Offer of Evidence on December 14. 0130. Bane – representative of Cable and Wireless Limited (C & W) at the time ETPI was organized. The Sandiganbayan promulgated a resolution: I. 0009] their testimonies and the documentary exhibits presented and identified by them. IIa. in the interest of speedy disposition of this long pending case. the petitioner filed a Motion. II. . the testimony of Mr. The petitioner] wishes to adopt in [Civil Case No. insofar as plaintiff prays therein to adopt certain/particular testimonies IIb. since their testimonies and the said documentary exhibits are very relevant to prove the case of the [petitioner] in [Civil Case No. Civil Case No. Motion to Admit the Bane Deposition At the trial of Civil Case No. 0009]. Urgent Motion and/or Request for Judicial Notice The petitioner did not in any way question the 1998 resolution. Bane (former director and treasurer-in-trust of ETPI) was taken– at the petitioner’s instance and after serving notice of the deposition-taking on the respondents II. the Bane deposition was not included as part of its offered exhibits. 0009 for the reason that said deponents according to the [petitioner] are not available for cross-examination in this Court by the [respondents]. Rectifying the omission. Significantly.

Sandiganbayan promulgated a resolution (2000 resolution) denying the petitioner’s 2nd motion: Judicial notice is found under Rule 129 which is titled “What Need Not Be Proved. together with the marked exhibits appended thereto.” Apparently. the initiative is upon the Court. But how can such a motion be granted when it has been resolved as early as 1998 that the deposition is inadmissible. or in the alternative for the court to take judicial notice of the allegations of the deposition. [its] admission is done through the ordinary formal offer of exhibits wherein the defendant is given ample opportunity to raise objection on grounds provided by law. The 3rd Motion. the Sandiganbayan should not have denied its admission on “flimsy grounds. . Plaintiff has slept on its rights for almost two years and it was only in February of 2000 that it sought to rectify its ineptitude by filing a motion to reopen its case as to enable it to introduce and offer Bane’s deposition as additional evidence. Petitioner claims that given the crucial importance of the Bane deposition. 1998 which already denied the introduction in evidence of Bane’s deposition and which has become final in view of plaintiff’s failure to file any motion for reconsideration or appeal within the 15-day reglementary period. Such being the case. stating: We do not see any need to dwell on these matters in view of this Court’s Resolution rendered on April 1.with the alternative prayer that: The [Sandiganbayan] to take judicial notice of the facts established by the [Bane deposition]. or in the course of the trial or other proceedings in resolving cases before it. Definitely. On the matter of the [Bane deposition]. it is not under Article (sic) 129 on judicial notice. the Court finds the Urgent Motion and/or Request for Judicial Notice as something which need not be acted upon as the same is considered redundant. this provision refers to the Court’s duty to consider admissions made by the parties in the pleadings. seeking once more the admission of the Bane deposition was also denied. The duty of the Court is mandatory and in those cases where it is discretionary.

In adjudicating a case on trial. This rule though admits of exceptions. The principle is based on convenience and expediency in securing and introducing evidence on matters which are not ordinarily capable of dispute and are not bona fide disputed. but where the evidence is rebuttal in character. generally. the aggrieved party may avail of the remedy of certiorari. Judicial notice is the cognizance of certain facts that judges may properly take and act on without proof because these facts are already known to them. for instance. even when such cases have been tried or are pending in the same court. Otherwise. Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. a party who has the burden of proof must introduce. arose from the shifting of the burden of evidence from one party to the other. at the first instance. 0130. . courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of the contents of the records of other cases. Rule 23. after the petitioner filed its Urgent Motion and/or Request for Judicial Notice. and notwithstanding that both cases may have been tried or are actually pending before the same judge. HELD: The Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in ultimately refusing to reopen the case for the purpose of introducing and admitting in evidence the Bane deposition Under this rule. Section 4. then the Sandiganbayan should have taken judicial notice of the Bane deposition as part of its evidence. par. The obvious rationale of the requirement is to avoid injurious surprises to the other party and the consequent delay in the administration of justice. and ii. Put differently. The petitioner cannot rely on principle of judicial notice The petitioner also claims that since the Bane deposition had already been previously introduced and admitted in Civil Case No. In the present case. the respondents were also heard through their corresponding oppositions. (c) alone or in relation to Section 47. it is the assumption by a court of a fact without need of further traditional evidentiary support.ISSUE: Whether the Bane deposition is admissible under i.the party’s right to introduce further evidence must be recognized. The principle of judicial notice. or where the evidence sought to be presented is in the nature of newly discovered evidence. all the evidence he relies upon and such evidence cannot be given piecemeal. V. whose necessity. A party’s declaration of the completion of the presentation of his evidence prevents him from introducing further evidence.

by name and number or in some other manner by which it is sufficiently designated. neither is the applicability of the rule on discretionary taking of judicial notice seriously pursued. the petitioner approaches the concept of judicial notice from a genealogical perspective of treating whatever evidence offered in any of the “children” cases – Civil Case 0130 – as evidence in the “parent” case – Civil Case 0009 . and admitted as a part of the record of the case then pending. reference is made to it for that purpose. warranting the dismissal of the latter case. at the request or with the consent of the parties. Rather. The issue before us does not involve the applicability of the rule on mandatory taking of judicial notice.or “of the whole family of cases. and absent an objection from. the supposed relationship of these cases warrants the taking of judicial notice. where sufficient basis exists in the records of the case before it. when. . or when the original record of the former case or any part of it.As a matter of convenience to all the parties. We strongly disagree. a court may properly treat all or any part of the original record of a case filed in its archives as read into the record of a case pending before it. is actually withdrawn from the archives at the court's direction.” To the petitioner. with the knowledge of. Courts must also take judicial notice of the records of another case or cases. the adverse party.