City of Manila vs.
Garcia There were squatters who invaded the lot that the City of Manila owned.
RTC Manila was duty-
bound to take judicial
notice of Ordinance 4566
because the city charter of
Manila required all courts
sitting therein to take
judicial notice of all the
ordinances passed by the
Municipal Board of Manila.
Baguio vs. De Jalagat
A court can take judicial
notice of the finality of a
judgment in a case that was
previously pending and
thereafter decided by it.
According to Chief Justice
Moran: “Courts have also
taken judicial notice of
previous cases to
determine w/n the case
pending is a moot one or
w/n a previous ruling is
applicable in the case
under consideration”
RTC Manila was duty-bound to take judicial notice
Epifanio de Los Santos Elementary school needed to expand and occupy of Ordinance 4566 because the city charter of
said land which the squatters took over. Treasurer demanded them to Manila required all courts sitting therein to take
vacate the land within 15 days but these demands went unheeded. Thus, judicial notice of all the ordinances passed by the
a suit to recover possession. City of Manila presented as evidence a Municipal Board of Manila.
Certification by the Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations of the
Municipal Board. In the document, 100,000 has been set aside for the
construction of an additional building of the EDSA Elementary school.
RTC said inadmissible. But decision reversed, and declared that there
was a need for defendants to vacate the said land, and cited the
Ordinance as basis.
W/N court should take judicial notice of Exhibit E? - YES
1st case: Recovery of Possession and Ownership of Real Estate filed by The lower court certainly could take judicial notice Teehankee Concurring: The
Gabriel Baguio against Mening Jalagat of the finality of a judgment in a case that was lower court properly took
previously pending and thereafter decided by it. judicial notice of the case
2nd case: Complaint for Quieting of Title to real property filed by Gabriel That was all that was done by the lower court in resolved by it wherein
Baguio against the heirs of Mening Jalagat decreeing the dismissal. Certainly such an order is admittedly the same lower
not contrary to law. A citation from the comments court dismissed an identical
A motion to dismiss was filed by the Jalagats, on the ground of bar by of former Chief Justice Moran is relevant. Thus: complaint filed over the same
prior judgment. They aver that Baguio filed a case involving practically "Courts have also taken judicial notice of previous property by the same plantiff
the same property and the same parties (now the heirs of Jalagat). And cases to determine whether or not the case against the same defendants
that the first case, which is identical to the 2nd case, has been terminated pending is a moot one, or whether or not a (who are the legal or forced
with finality. previous ruling is applicable in the case under heirs of the now deceased
consideration." Melecio Jalagat, defendant in
Baguio of course opposed this, stating that for res judicata to be a ground the prior case). Such judicial
for dismissal, it must be evident on the face of the complaint. notice taken by the lower court
is sanctioned under Rule 129,
Lower courts dismissed the case on the ground of res judicata section 1. It in effect supplants
the evidence on motion that
W/N courts can take judicial notice of a previous case judged with Rule 133, section 7 Rule 133,
finality? YES section 7, which provides that
"(W)hen a motion is based on
facts not appearing of record
the court may hear the matter
on affidavits or depositions
presented by the respective
parties, but the court may direct
that the matter be heard wholly
or partly on oral testimony or
depositions." When the ground
of the dismissal motion is, a
prior judgment rendered by the
same court a fact known to the
court and to the parties as well,
as in the case at bar the taking

Prieto vs. Arroyo
The general rule is that
courts are not authorized
to take judicial notice in the
adjudication of cases
pending before them, of the
contents of other cases,
even when such cases have
been tried or are pending
in the same court, and
notwithstanding the fact
that both cases may have
been tried or are actually
pending with the same
judge.
Yao Kee vs. Sy-Kiat
it was held that the court
cannot take judicial notice
of foreign laws so it must
be alleged and proven as
any other fact. In this case,
the SC held that the heirs
Zeferino Arroyo filed a petition to register several parcels of land in his
name. Granted. Thereafter, Prieto also filed a petition for registration of
adjoining parcels of land. When Arroyo died, his Original Certificate of
Title was cancelled and a TCT was issued in the names of his heirs.
However, the heirs filed a case wherein they claimed that the description
of the land in the OCT from the TCT was different, and in fact was less by
157 sqm. They prayed that the description be corrected. Court issued an
order to the Register of Deeds to correct. After this, Prieto filed a case to
Annul said order. However, neither he or his counsel appeared so
dismissed for failure to prosecute. He again filed another case to annult
the order and prayed for reconveyance of the 157 sqm. Arroyos filed a
MTD based on res judicata. Court granted motion. Hence, this appeal.
Prieto contends that the order could not have the effect of a judgment
because respondents never filed any opposition or responsive pleading
thereto.
Prieto now contends that there is no res judicata and invoked the court
to have been erred in dismissing his first petition to annul the special
proceeding even when he did not appear in court as no parole evidence is
needed to support his petition where the matters concerning the land
registration proceeding are parts of the record of the court which are
well within the court’s judicial notice.
W/N the case was properly dismissed based on res judicata? – YES
Sy Kiat is a Chinese National. He died, leaving behind real and personal
properties in the Philippines, as well as 2 families. The first is with his
common law wife, Asuncion gillego, and the second with Yao Kee, a
fellow Chinese national. Children of Gillego filed a petition for the grant
of letters of administration alleging that they are the heirs of the
deceased and that they do not recognize the marriage of Sy Kiat to Yao
Kee. Yao Kee and her children opposed this, alleging that Yao Kee is the
lawful wife, and that the children are legitimate. As proof of their
of judicial notice of said prior
judgment by the same court
constitutes the very evidence
needed to dispose of the
dismissal motion.
In the first place, as a general rule, courts are not
authorized to take judicial notice in the
adjudication of cases pending before them, of the
contents of other cases, even when such cases have
been tried or are pending in the same court, and
notwithstanding the fact that both cases may have
been tried or are actually pending before the same
judge. Secondly, if appellant had really wanted the
court to take judicial notice of such records, he
should have presented the proper request or
manifestation to that effect instead of sending, by
counsel, a telegraphic motion for postponement of
hearing, which the court correctly denied. Finally,
the point raised by counsel is now academic, as no
appeal was taken from the order dismissing his
first petition, and said order had long become final
when the complaint in the present action was filed.
In addition, the contention that the causes of
action in the two suits are different is untenable.
Both are based on the alleged nullity of Special
Proceedings in both appellant seeks that the order
of correction of the title of appellees be set aside.
Of no material significance is the fact that in the
complaint in the instant case there is an express
prayer for reconveyance of some 157 square
meters of land, taken from appellant as a result of
such correction of title. There being identity of
parties, subject matter and cause of action
between the two cases, the order of dismissal
issued in the first constitutes a bar to the
institution of the second.
The evidence presented by the petitioners may
very well prove the fact of marriage between Yao
Kee and Sy Kiat. However, the same do not suffice
to establish the validity of said marriage in
accordance with Chinese law or custom.
To establish a valid foreign marriage two things
failed to prove the validity
marriage of Sy Kiat and Yao
Kee in accordance with
Chinese law. It then applied
the doctrine of “processual
presumption” which
provides that “in the
absence of proof of the
foreign law, it is presumed
to be the same as the law of
the forum” In effect, the
laws of the PH were
presumed to be the same
as the laws of China. Since
there was no solemnizing
officer, the marriage
cannot be recognized here
in the Philippines as it is
invalid.
Tabuena vs. Court of
Appeals
GR: Courts are not
authorized to take judicial
notice, in the adjudication
of cases pending before
them, of the contents of the
records of other cases,
even when such cases have
been tried or are pending
in the same court, and
notwithstanding the fact
that both cases may have
been heard or are actually
pending b before the same
judge.
EXCEPTION: in the absence
of objection, and as a
matter of convenience to
all parties, a court may
properly treat all or any
part of the original record
of a case filed in its
archives as read into the
marriage, they presented the ff: testimony of Yao Kee, her brother,
certificate of alien registration and and certification issued by the
Chinese embassy saying that Sy Kiat and Yao Kee were married in China.
Court said that Yao Kee was the legal wife and children are legitimate.
However, Appellate court reversed, saying that Yao Kee was not the legal
wife since marriage has not been proven to be valid in accordance with
Chinese law.
W/N marriage has been conclusively proven? NO
Peralta sold a lot to Tabernilla. Tabernilla allowed Peralta’s mother,
Timtiman to stay on the land, which she did until she died. After
Timtiman died, Tabuena, her son and half-brother of Peralta took
possession of the lot and claimed to be the absolute owner of the lot by
virtue of succession. Tabuena refused to surrender the lot to Tabernilla.
Tabernilla filed a complaint to recover the property. TC ordered Tabuena
to vacate the lot. CA affirmed and upheld the use of the trial court of the
testimony of Tabuena given an earlier case to bolster its findings.
Whether it was proper for the court to take judicial notice of testimony in
a previous case with the same court? NO.
must be proven:
1. The existence of foreign law as a question of fact
and
2. The alleged foreign evidence by convincing
evidence.
Here, the petitioners failed to discharge the burden
of proving the validity of the foreign marriage.
Moreover, the courts cannot take judicial notice of
foreign law. Foreign law is a question of fact and
must be alleged and proved as any other fact.Thus,
in the absence of foreign law, Philippine law shall
govern the resolution of the case. Here, since Yao
Kee herself admitted that there was no
solemnizing officer, as understood in the
Philippines, when the marriage was celebrated
such marriage cannot be recognized here.
As a general rule, courts are not authorized to take
judicial notice of the contents of the records of
other cases, even when such cases have been tried
or are pending in the same court, and whether
pending before the same judge.
Nevertheless, the court may take judicial notice of
records of other cases only when, in the absence of
objection, with the knowledge of the opposing
party or at the request or with the consent of both
parties, the case is clearly referred to or the
original of the records are withdrawn from the
archives and admitted as part of the records of the
pending case.
Here, the court erred since Tabuena was unaware
that his testimony in a previous case was being
considered in the present case. The justification of
the appellate court in admitting the records is that
such was merely corroborative. However, the
evidence which the record is sought to be
corroborative is in itself inadmissible because they
were not formally offered into evidence: a letter
stating payment of 600 pesos, a Spanish document
and a deed of conveyance executed by Tabernilla
record of a case pending and Timtiman.
before it, when:
Thus, the Supreme Court here reversed and
1. "in the absence of dismissed the case for recovery of property for
objection," or 
 failure of plaintiff-respondents to substantiate
their allegations.
2. "with the knowledge of
the opposing
party," or 


3. "at the request or with

the consent of the
parties," The case
is clearly referred
to” or "the
original or part of
the records of the
case are actually
withdrawn from
the archives" and
admitted as part
of the record of
the case then
pending. 


People vs. Godoy
The Court takes judicial
cognizance of the fact that
young ladies in rural areas
in the Philippines are
required to act with
circumspection and
prudence
Godoy was charged with 2 informations of rape and kidnapping with
serious illegal detention. He allegedly raped his student in physics, Mia
Taha. The first instance was at her cousin’s boarding house, where Godoy
pointed a knife at her and proceeded to rape her. The second instance
was when Godoy went to Mia’s parent’s house and asked permission if
Mia could accompany him in soliciting funds. He brought Mia to Sunset
Garden Motel where he proceeded to rape her over the span of 3 days.
There was a police blotter that Mia was missing. Mia returned and they
went to a medico legal which found lacerations in her vagina, concluding
that she just had sexual intercourse.
Godoy of course Denied this. He said they were lovers. To bolster his
claim, he presented 2 love letters delivered to him in jail while he was
detained. The letetrs said that Mia was only forced to testify by her
parents. The delivery of the letters by Lorna was denied but the jail guard
testified as to the fact of delivery. Several teachers also testified as to the
handwriting of Mia.
W/N the guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt? NO
Here, the prosecution had failed to prove beyond
reasonable doubt the accused had sexual
intercourse with the complainant against her will.
The defense of the accused is the sweetheart
theory. Together with the letters sent by the
complainant to the accused and the several
inconsistencies in the testimony of the
complainant are strong indications of the
innocence of the accused. The letters written by
complainant to the accused are very revealing to
the extent that it can be safely presumed that the
rape charge was merely an offshoot of the
discovery by her parents of the intimate
relationship between her and accused. In order to
avoid retribution from her parents, together with
the moral pressure exerted upon her by her
mother, she was forced to concoct her account of
the alleged rape.

The Court takes judicial cognizance of the fact that

in rural areas in the Philippines, young ladies are

BPI vs. Court of Appeals This case involves a claim for tax refund.
In the 1989 Income Tax Return of petitioner it appeared that it had a
Claim for tax refund / refundable amount which it declared was to be applied as tax credit to
the succeeding taxable year of 1990.
However, petitioner filed a claim for tax refund because part of the
total re fundable amount was not applied as tax credit because the
company had incurred losses in 1990. A copy of the Final Adjustment
Return for 1990 was attached to petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration
filed before the CTA. The Return clearly show ed that petit ioner incurred
net losses in 1990.
CTA dismissed the petition on the ground that petitioner failed to
present as evidence its Corporate Annual Income Tax Return for 1990 to
establish the fact that it had yet to credit the amount to its 1990 tax
liability.
CA affirmed the CTA.
With regard to judicial notice, petitioner called the attention of the
Court to a decision rendered by the Tax Court whereby it found that the
same petitioner incurred losses in 1990. The respondents CTA, CA and
CIR however contend that the Supreme Court should not take judicial
notice of the said decision.
W/N judicial notice should be taken of the previous CTA case?
strictly required to act with circumspection and
prudence. Great caution is observed so that their
reputations shall remain untainted. Any breath of
scandal which brings dishonor to their character
humiliates their entire families
As a rule, courts are NOT authorized to take
judicial notice of the contents of the records of
other cases, even when such cases have been tried
or are pending in the same court, and
notwithstanding the fact that both cases may have
been heard or are actually pending before the
same judge.
Be it as it may, Section 2 of Rule 129 of the
Rules of Court provides that courts may take
judicial notice of matters ought to be known t o
judges because of their judicial functions.
o In this case, a copy of the CTA decision was
attached to the Petition for Review filed before the
SC.
o The SC stated information showing that
petitioner did not use its 1989 refund to pay its
taxes for 1990.
o Respondents do not dispute the contents of said
Decision, claiming merely that the court cannot
take judicial notice thereof.
In failing to consider the said Return, as well as
the other documentary evidence presented during
the trial, the CA committed a r eversible error.
Moreover, there can be no just determination of
the present action if we ignore, on grounds of strict
technicality, the Return submitted before the CTA
and even before this Court.
Substantial justice, equity and fair play are on
the side o f petitioner. Technicalities and legalisms,
however exalted, should not be misused by the
government to keep money not belonging to it and
thereby enrich itself at the expense of its law -

Lucido vs. Calupitan
Pleadings can contain
admissions of the parties
“that are made in the
course of proceedings”
However, if one wants to
present amended pleadings
(that supersede the
original pleading that may
contain an admission), as
admissions, it must be
formally offered in
evidence. In this case, the
original pleading that was
superseded was admitted
into evidence. This was
used by the court in
determining that the sale in
question was a pacto de
retro sale.
Torres vs. CA
elaborating on Lucido, the
superseded pleading
becomes an extra- judicial
admission, that requires a
formal offer.
Original complain said that
Rosales and Zolaivar were execution purchasers of properties of Lucido.
Public document was executed and signed by all parties, wherein it was
stated that w/the consent of Lucido, Rosales & Zolaivar sold all their
rights and obligations to Calupitan. Lucido and Calupitan also executed a
loan wherein Calupitan agreed to furnish Lucido a loan in order to
redeem the property from R&Z. The agreement states the Calupitan can
take possession of the major portion of the land, subject howerver to the
right of redemption of Ludico (which is 3 years).
Lucido filed an action to recover the property against Calupitan. TC held
that properties should be returned to Lucido.
W/N the sale was with right to repurchase? Yes
Margarita Torres (M) was married to Claro Santillan. They had two
children, Vicente and Antoniona . Claro died and Margarita became a
widow. A’s children and V are the respondents.
After Claro’s death, Margarita lived with Leon Arbole (LA) . Before
getting married, they had a child named Macaria Torres, the petitioner. M
married LA .
This case is centered on the ownership of a lot in Cavite, owned by M.
Before LA died, he sold all his rights and interest in the half portion of the
abiding citizens.
If the State expects its taxpayers to observe
fairn ess and honesty in paying their taxes, so must
it apply the same standard against itself in
refunding excess payments of such taxes.
The Supreme Court found that the agreement
between Lucido and Calupitan was one of sale with
right to redeem. To bolster this finding, the
Supreme Court mentioned the fact that Calupitan
himself considered this transaction as a sale with
right to redeem as found in his original answer to
the complaint. This original answer was introduced
in evidence by the plaintiff Lucido over the
objection of Calupitan. Its admission was proper,
especially in view of the fact that it was signed by
Calupitan himself, who was at the time acting as
his own attorney.
According to Jones on Evidence, as cited by the
Supreme Court, pleadings are to be treated as
statements of real issues in the cause and hence as
admissions of the parties, having weight according
to the circumstances of each case. On the same
principle, where amended pleadings have been
filed, allegations in the original pleadings are held
admissible, but in such case the original pleadings
can have no effect unless formally offered in
evidence, as was done in this case.
When a complaint is amended, the Amended
Complaint takes the place of the original. The latter
is regarded as abandoned and ceases to perform
any further function as a pleading. The original
complaint no longer forms part of the record. If a
party wishes to utilize the original complaint, the
said party should offer it in evidence. Having been
amended, the original complaint lost its character
as a judicial admission, which would have required
no proof, and became merely an extrajudicial
admission, the admissibility of which, as evidence,
Macaria was the nearest of lot to Macaria Torres.
kin
Vicente then executed an Affidavit claiming possession of the lot and a
TCT was then issued in the name of the legal heirs of M. V and A’s
children then filed a complaint for Forcible Entry against Macaria.
The court decided against Macaria, so she appealed to the CFI .
Macaria then instituted an action for partition of the lot.
CFI jointly tried the ejectment and partition cases and gave Macaria
1/3 of the lot and the respondents 2/3.
required its formal offer. Contrary to Torres'
submission, therefore there can be no estoppel by
extrajudicial admission made in the original
complaint, for failure to offer it in evidence.
Teehankee Dissent: because respondents
subsequently deleted the same in their amended
complaint. The original complaint, although
replaced by an amended complaint, does not cease
to be a part of the judicial record, not having been
expunged therefrom.

Macaria asked for a reconsideration which was granted based on a

finding that Macaria was a legitimated child of M and LA . Her share in
the property was increased to two -thirds of the lot.

V and A’s children appealed to the CA which found that Macaria was
not a legitimated child and reduced her share to half of the lot.

Macaria is now claiming she and Vicente and Antonina are brothers
and sisters and they are the legal heirs and nearest of relatives of
Maragarita based on a statement found in the respondents’ original
complaint for forcible entry.

It read that the plaintiffs “and the defendant Macaria A Bautista” are
the legal heirs and nearest of kin of M, who died at Tanza, Cavite. When
respondents amended their complaint, this part “and the defendant
Macaria A Bautista” was deleted

W/N the statement in the original complaint can be treated as a judicial

admission? – NO

Sison vs. People
For photographs to be
admissible, they must be
identified either by the #1)
photographer or #2) any
other competent witness
who can testify to its
accuracy. In this case,
however, the use of the
party against whom the
photograph is sought to be
admitted, is an admission
Sison is a Marcos Loyalist. He was charged with the murder of salcedo a
Coryista. Marcos loyalists made an impromptu rally in Luneta. When the
police started to disperse them, Lozano instructed the Marcos loyalists to
beat up all the supporters of Cory Aquino who infiltrated the rally. A
cigarette vendor saw the loyalists attacking a person in yellow so the
cigarette vendor removed his shirt. He then saw a group of persons
chasing another man in yellow who happened to be Salcedo. They kicked
and boxed him on different parts of his body. Dead on arrival at
Philippine General Hospital. Mauling of Salcedo as witnessed by
bystander and press people who took pictures. RTC found Sisoin and 4
other guilty of Salcedo’s murder.
Accused denied their participation in the mauling incident. When the
The rule in this jurisdiction is that photographs,
when presented in evidence, must be identified by
the photographer as to its production and testified
as to the circumstances under which they were
produced. The value of this kind of evidence lies in
its being a correct representation or reproduction
of the original, and its admissibility is determined
by its accuracy in portraying the scene at the time
of the crime. The photographer, however, is not
the only witness who can identify the pictures he
has taken. The correctness of the photograph as a
faithful representation of the object portrayed can
be proved prima facie, either by the testimony of
of the photograph’s prosecution presented the photos as evidence, appelants objected to the
accuracy. lack of admissibility because the photographer who took the photos was
not presented.However when accused presented their evidence, the
counsel for accused Neri and Tamayo (Atty. Winlove Dumayas) used the
photos to prove that Neri and Tamayo were not in the photos. Adopted as
part of the exhibits. Prosecution used the photos to cross-examine, but no
objection was made. Atty. Lazaro at the third hearing objected to the
admissibility of the photos due to the fact that the person who took them
was not prsented
W/N the photos were admissible as evidence?
the person who made it or by other competent
witnesses, after which the court can admit it
subject to impeachment as to its accuracy.
Photographs, therefore, can be identified by the
photographer or by any other competent witness
who can testify to its exactness and accuracy.
T he use of these photographs by some of the
accused to show their alleged non - participation in
the crime is an admission of the exactness and
accuracy thereof.

That the photographs are faithful

representations of the mauling incident was
affirmed when appellants de los Santos, Pacadar
and Tan identified themselves therein and gave
reasons for their presence thereat.

AdamCzuk vs. Holloway Plaintiffs filed an action against defendants for personal injuries and The rule is well settled that a photograph may be
property damage arising out of a collision between a car owned and put in evidence if relevant to the issue and if
Car collision at the operated by plaintiff, Jack Adamczuk, and a car driven by defendant, verified. It does not have to be verified by the
intersection Elmer Holloway. taker. Its verification depends on the competency
of the verifying witness and as to that the trial
in addition to the Adamczuk was driving southwardly while Holloway was driving to the judge must in the first instance decide, subject to
requirement that a east reversal for substantial error.
photograph must be
identified or verified The assignment of error which appellant stresses is based upon the The map or photograph must first to be
(made part of some refusal of the court to admit in evidence a certain photograph of the locus admissible, be made a part of some qualified
qualified person’s of the accident and the approach to it on Highway Route 6. person's testimony. Someone must stand forth as
testimony), it must also be its testimonial sponsor in other words, it must be
relevant to the fact in issue. When plaintiff, Jack Adamczuk, was on the stand, he was shown verified. There is nothing anomalous or
In this case, the Court held "Exhibit No. 3" and he identified the roads and buildings appearing in the exceptional in this requirement of verification it is
that the exclusion of the picture and stated that " the conditions represented by that picture truly simply the exaction of those testimonial qualities
photograph was justified represent the condi tions of the crossing at the time of this accident which are required equally of all witnesses the
because it was EXCEPT for the fact of daylight or dark ." Then the exhibit was offered in application merely takes a different e
unnecessary/irrelevant. evidence. photographed and is competent to testify that the
photograph correctly represents it, it should, if
On cross - examination , it became apparent that the witness did not relevant, be admitted.
know who took the picture or when it was taken .

o He stated that when the picture was taken the location of the camera
was on route 6 but he did not know at what distance from the
intersection .

o He did not know whether the photographer tilted the camera up or

down when the picture was taken, and he did not know whether the
 photographer "endeavored to accentuate certain parts of the picture."

The court then sustained the objection to the picture's introduction.

It was offered in evidence again when the Civil Engineer and County
Surveyor, was on the stand. This w itness was asked if he took
photographs and developed them. He answered: "Very little."

There is no proof of who took it, or any identity as to the picture, other
than the physical view thereon it isn't shown where the camera was
standing, under what conditions it was taken, and whether it was taken
with a view to distorting it or n

Important to AdamCzuks case bec it shows that person could see to the
west, if he held his head at a 45 degree angle, only a distance of about
200 feet. The engineer testified that a person at the intersection had a
clear, unobstructed view to the west of 793 feet. Adamczuk, in explaining
why he did not see the car coming from the west, said that he had his
head turned at a 45 degree angle. The defendants contend that this
excuse is of no avail to him and that had he held his head in a normal
position he would have had an unobstructed view to the west of nearly
800 feet.

Whether the photograph should be admitted as evidence? NO.

State of Washigton vs. Tousin received monthly welfare checks from the state of Washington. In For a photograph to be admissible in evidence, the
Tatum February 1960, Tousi n did not receive his check (the checks were authentication required by courts is that some
generally mailed to a rooming house in Pasco where Tousin resided.) witness (not necessarily the photographer) be able
Regiscope, forgery to give some indication as to when, where, and
Ralph Tatum resided at the same place. under what circumstances the photograph was
taken, and that the photograph accurately portray
Tousin's February check was endorsed and cashed at Sherman's Food the subject or subjects illustrated. The photograph
The court set out the Store in Pasco by someone other than him . need only be sufficiently accurate to be helpful to
standards for the court and the jury.
authentication of a An employee of the store, Caroline Pentecost, testified that although
photograph (for its she could not specifically recall the transaction, the initials appearing on Witness Pentecost testified that she recognized the
admissibility) to wit: “some the face of the check were hers. She also testified that whenever a check background shown in the picture as that of the
witness must be able to was presented to her for payme nt at the store, the store manager had food store, and, as mentioned previously, she also
give some indication as to instructed her to initial it and then insert it into a "Regiscope" machine. testified as to the store's standard procedure of
1) when 2) where and 3) This machine is designed to simultaneously photograph, through two "regiscoping" each individual who cashed a check
under what circumstances at the store. Phillip Dale testified at length
was the picture taken AND concerning the Regiscope process. The testimony
that the picture accurately
portrays the subject
illustrated.
Compania Maritima vs.
Allied Free Workers Union
Presented the auditors
report on the loss of freight
revenues; admissible
separate lenses, both the check and the person facing the machine.
When it was discovered that the endorsement of the payee was a
forgery, the Regiscope film of the transaction was sent to the Regiscope
distributor in Portland to be developed.
The processed film shows both the check and the person of appellant
(from his waist up ) with the food store in the background.
Upon trial, both the negative and the print therefrom were admitted in
evidence, over Tatum’s objection.
He was then convicted of the crime of forgery and was sentenced to life
imprisonment as a habitual criminal.
W/N regiscope films should be admitted in evidence? YES
Maritima entered into a contract with Allied Union where the latter
agreed to render stevedoring services for a month, renewable upon
agreement, but subject to termination if the union failed to render proper
service. The union agreed to be paid for its arrastre services which is the
hauling of the cargo from the vessel to the place of the consignee or
shipper, while it shall be the owner or consignee who shall pay for the
stevedoring services since according to them the bill of lading provided
that the unloading of the cargo shall be at the ship’s expense.
Meanwhile, Maritima refused to pay for the union’s stevedoring services
on the basis of the contract entered between them. Since, the union
workers are in dire need of work, they continued rendering their services
despite the knowledge that they are not being paid for their stevedoring
services. Maritima entered into a stevedoring agreement with the Iligan
Stevedoring Association. Because of this, the union picketed and
of these two witnesses taken together amounted to
a sufficient authentication to warrant the
admission of the photograph (both the print and
the negative) into evidence.
The authentication supplied by the testimony
summarized above, of course, did not preclude
Tatum from attempting to prove that the
individual portrayed was someone other than
appellant, that the photograph was inaccurate in
one or more respects, that appellant was
somewhere else at the moment the photograph
was taken, or any other such defense. But these
arguments go to the weight rather than to the
admissibility of the exhibits in question. In our
opinion, the Regiscope exhibits, coupled with the
other evidence produced by the state, sufficed to
establish a prima facie case of first-degree forgery.
The fact that Dale was not a professional
photographer and may have not understood all of
the technical details of the process, did not, from
an evidentiary standpoint, disqualify him from
expressing an opinion in his testimony as to the
possibility of altering a given Regiscope print. In
view of witness Dale's testimony that he
personally had developed "four to five hundred
thousand" individual Regiscope films, we hardly
think that the trial court abused its discretion in
this regard.
The best evidence on the cost of equipment (by The requisites for the
reason of depreciation) would have been the admissibility of secondary
SALES INVOICE instead of the oral testimony of evidence when the original is in
Teves, the branch manager. the custody of the party:
The rule that “when the original consists of (1) opponent’s possession
numerous accounts or other documents which
cannot be examined in court without great loss of (2) reasonable notice,
time and the fact sought to be established from
them is only the general result of the whole ,” the (3) satisfactory proof of
original writings need not be produced, cannot be existence,
invoked in this case.
(4) failure or refusal of
For one, the voluminous character of the opponent to produce the

Villa Rey Transit vs. Ferrer
prevented Iligan Stevedoring from performing its services.
Maritima retaliated by filing an action with the union for the rescission of
the contract, for injunction and for damages. The company attached an
auditor’s report that the company lost freight revenues.
The trial court rendered money judgment against the union.
The appeal made by the union attacked the manner in which the tri al
court arrived with the sum of 450,000 which Maritima allegedly suffered
because of lost freightage, inefficiency in the services of the union
workers, among other causes attributable to the union.
The union alleges that the award of damages was improper since the
auditor’s report is mere hearsay.
WON damages should be awarded on the ground of the auditor’s report
on which they were based were hearsay?
Jose Villarama was an operator of a bus transportation, under the
business name of Villa Rey Transit, pursuant to certificates of public
convenience granted him by the Public Service Commission which
authorized him to operate. He sold the two certificates of public
convenience to the Pangasinan Transportation Company (Pantranco),
with the condition, among others, that the seller " shall not for a period of
10 years...apply for any TPU service identical or competing with the
buyer ."
On that same day when the contract of sale was executed, the parties
immediately applied with the PSC for its approval, with a prayer for the
issuance of a provisional authority in favor of the vendee Corporation to
operate the service therein involved.
Barely three months later, Villa Rey Transit was organized with
Villarama and his wife as incorporators. In less than a month after its
registration with the SEC, the corporation bought five certificates of
public convenience , buses, tools and equipment from one Valentin
Fernando.
Before the PSC could take final action on said application for approval of
sale however, the Sheriff of Manila levied on two of the five certificates of
public convenience involved---this is pursuant to a writ of execution
issued by the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan in favor of Eusebio
records, on which the accountant’s reports were original in court.
based, was not duly established. For another, the
records on which the accounts should be made As to the first element, it is
accessible to the adverse party so that the correct enough that the circumstances
ness of the summary may be tested on cross - are such as to indicate that the
examination. original is in the actual
possession of the adversary.
On the other hand, the rule that should be
applied is the general rule that “an audit made by,
or the testimony of, a private auditor, is
inadmissible in evidence as proof of original
records, books of accounts, reports or the like.”
The general rule cannot be relaxed in this case
since they failed to a preliminary showing as to the
difficulty or impossibility attending the production
of the records in court and their examination and
analysis as evidence by the court.
Section 5, Rule 130 provides for the requisites for
admissibility of secondary evidence when:
(1)opponent’s possession of the original
(2)the notice to opponent to produce the original,
(3) satisfactory proof of existence,
(4) failure or refusal of opponent to produce the
original in court.
In this case, such requisites have been complied
with. Villarama has practically admitted the
second and fourth. As to the third, he admitted its
previous existence in the files of the Corporation
and had even seen some of them. As to the first, he
said that the originals were missing and the
Corporation is no longer in possession of it.
However, it is not necessary for a party seeking to
introduce secondary evidence to show that the
original is in the possession of possession of his
adversary. It is enough that the circumstances are
such as to indicate that the writing is in his
 Ferrer, a judgment creditor of Fernando. A public sale was then
conducted by the Sheriff of the said two certificates of public convenience
and Ferrer was the highest bidder, and a certificate of sale was issued in
his name. He eventually sold the certificates of public convenience to
Pantranco. PSC thereafter issued a ruling awarding provisional right to
operate to Pantranco. The Corporation took issue with this ruling and
elevated the matter to the Supreme Court which ruled that it should be
the Corporation who must provisionally operate the lines until the
dispute on ownership is settled by the proper court. The Corporation
then filed a petition to declare the sheriff’s sale void.
Pantranco contends that the Corporation and Jose Villarama are one
and the same, and consequently, the non-competition clause embodied in
the deed of sale entered into by Jose Villarama is also binding to the
Corporation.
To prove its contention, Pantranco presented photostatic copies of the
ledgers and vouchers which showed the comingling of Villarama’s
personal funds and those of the corporation’s. Villarama assailed the
admissibility of said ledgers and vouchers, contending that they have no
evidentiary value as they are merely photocopies of originals and thus
are not the best evidence
1. Whether or not the photostatic ledgers and vouchers are admissible?
YES.
Michael & Co v. Enriquez E. Michael and Co. claims to be a successor of a sale with a right to
repurchase made by Enriquez in favor of Michael and E. Michael & Co. by
????? wtf happened virtue of an instrument, duly executed and delivered to it, transferring
the land subject of this litigation. It alleged that the right to repurchase
had expired, thus, the consolidation of ownership in the petitioner
company.
During the trial, MCI attempted to prove two things which the trial court
prevented it from doing: (1) the execution and delivery of the
conveyance transferring to it the land in question and (2) the fact that
the instrument so executed and delivered was lost
There were questions, however, which were well-framed and whose
answers should be allowed, the trial court nevertheless sustained
objections to it and the evidence sought to be adduced was excluded.
Thus, when the CFI of Cebu dismissed the case on the ground of lack of
cause of action, the petitioner company filed this appeal.
possession or under his control. Neither is it
required that the party entitled to the custody of
the instrument should, on being notified to
produce it, admit having it in his possession.
Hence, secondary evidence is admissible where he
denies having it in his possession. The party calling
for such evidence may introduce a copy thereof as
in the case of loss. For, among the exceptions to the
best evidence rule is when the original has been
lost, destroyed or cannot be produced in court in
question must be deemed to have been lost, as
even the Corporation admits such loss. Hence,
there can be no doubt as to the admissibility in
evidence of the said photocopies of vouchers &
ledgers.
Trial courts do well in refusing at all times to
permit the introduction of incompetent evidence
and particularly secondary evidence of the
contents of written instruments unless the facts
required by the Code of Civil Procedure as the
conditions precedent for such evidence are clearly
shown to exist. Section 321 of the Code provides:
If it has been lost, proof of the loss must first be
made before evidence can be given of its contents.
Upon such proof being made, together with proof
of the due execution of the writing, its contents
may be proved by a copy or by a recital of its
contents in some
As will be seen in this section, the writing itself
must be produced unless it has been lost or
destroyed in which case, before its contents may
First , it being his purpose to lay the basis for the introduction of
secondary evidence as to its contents .
The plaintiff takes exception to the rulings of the court respecting the
admission of evidence tending to establish the execution and delivery
and the subsequent loss of the document in question, thus laying the
proper foundation for bringing up the rulings of the court on those
matters
be proved by other evidence, it must be shown by
the party offering secondary evidence that: 1.) that
the document was duly executed and delivered,
where delivery is necessary, and 2.) that it has
been lost or destroyed.
The execution or delivery of the document maybe
established by the person or persons, who
executed it, by the person before whom its
execution was acknowledged, or by any person
who was present and saw it executed and
delivered or who, after its execution and delivery,
saw it and recognized the signatures or by a
person to whom the parties to the instruments
have previously confessed the execution thereof.
The destruction of the instrument may be proved
by any person knowing the fact. The loss may be
shown by any person who knew the fact of its loss,
or by anyone who has made, in the judgment of the
court, a sufficient examination in the place or
places where the document or pares of similar
character are usually kept by the person in whose
custody the document lost was, and has been
unable to find it or who has made any other
investigation which is sufficient to satisfy the Court
that the document was indeed lost.
If it appears, on an attempt to prove the loss, that
the document is in fact in existence, then the proof
of loss or destruction fails and secondary evidence
is inadmissible unless section 322 of the Civil code
of Procedure should be applicable. After proper
proof of the due execution and delivery and its loss
or destruction, oral evidence maybe given of its
contents by any person who signed the document,
or who read it, or heard it read knowing, or it
being proved from other sources, that the
document so read was the one in question. Such
evidence may also be given by any person who
was present when the contents of the document
was being talked over between the parties thereto
to such an extent as to give him reasonably full
information as to its contents or the contents
maybe proved by any person to whom the parties
to the instrument have confessed or stated the
contents thereof or by a copy thereof or by a

De Vera vs. Aguilar The petitioners De Vera and respondent Leona Aguilar, married to
respondent Aguilar, are the children and heirs of the late Marcosa
Bernabe. During her lifetime, she owned the disputed parcel of land in
Camalig, Maycauayan, Bulacan. Two of the petitioners, Basilio and Felipe,
mortgaged said land to Atty. Bordador. When the mortgage matured, the
Aguilar spouses redeemed it from Atty. Bordador and were in turn sold
to them by Marcosa, evidenced by a deed of absolute sale. Thereafter, an
OCT was issued in their name. Three years later, the De Veras wrote to
the Aguilar spouses demanding for partition of the disputed land
claiming that as children of Marcosa, they were co-owners of the
property. They further claimed that the Aguilar spouses had resold the
property to Marcosa. The Aguilar spouses denied all these allegations by
the De Veras.
The De Veras filed a suit for reconveyance of the lot and the trial court
ruled in favor of the petitioners after admitting, over the objection of the
Aguilar spouses, a photocopy of an alleged deed of sale executed by them
in favor of Marcosa.
The CA reversed upon finding that the loss or destruction of the original
deed of sale has not been duly proven by the petitioners rendering the
photocopy of the deed of sale as inadmissible in evidence.
W/N petitioners have proven the loss of the original deed of sale so as to
allow the admission of the Xeroxed copy of the deed of sale? ( NO )
recital of its contents in some authentic document.
Secondary evidence is admissible when the
original documents were actually lost or
destroyed.
But prior to the introduction of such secondary
evidence, the proponent must establish the former
existence of the instrument. The correct order of
proof is as follows: (1) existence, (2) execution,
(3) loss, (4) contents, although this order may be
changed in the discretion of the court. The
sufficiency of proof offered as a predicate for the
admission of an alleged lost deed lies within the
judicial discretion of the trial court under all the
circumstances of the particular case. A reading of
the decision of the trial court shows that it merely
ruled on the existence and due execution of the
alleged deed of sale dated April 28, 2959. It failed
to look into the facts and circumstances
surrounding the loss or destruction of the original
copies of the alleged deed of sale.
The Notary Public who notarized the do cument
testified that the alleged deed has 4-5 original
copies. Hence, all originals must be accounted for
before secondary evidence can be given of anyone.
This petitioners failed to do. They only accounted
for 3 to 5 copies.
In establishing the execution of a document, the
same may be established by the person or persons
who executed it, by the person before whom its
execution was acknowledged, or by any person
who was present and saw it executed or who, after
its execution saw it and recognized the signatures
or by a person to whom the parties to the
instrument had previously confessed the execution
thereof. The Court agreed with the findings of the
trial court that the petitioners have sufficiently
established the due execution of the alleged deed
of sale through the testimony of the notary public.
The destruction of the instrument may be proved

NPC vs. Codilla M/V Dibena Win, a vessel of foreign registry owned and operated by
Bangpai Shipping Co., allegedly bumped and damaged the power barge of
Whether or not the the National Power Corporation which was then moored at the Cebu
photocopies were International Port. Consequently, NAPOCOR filed before the RTC a
considered electronic complaint for damages against Bangpai for the alleged damages caused
documentts on its power barge. Thereafter, NAPOCOR filed an amended complaint,
impleading Wallem Shipping Inc., contending that the latter is a ship
agent of Bangpai. Both Bangpai and Wallem filed a motion to dismiss,
however, it was denied.
After adducing evidence during the trial, NAPOCOR filed a formal offer of
evidence consisting of Exhibits A to V together with the sub-marked
portions thereof. On the other hand, Bangpai and Wallem excluding from
the records Exhibits A, C, D, E, H and its sub-markings I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P.
It argued that NAPOCOR has been given every opportunity to present the
originals of the photocopies of the documents it offered, but it never
produced the originals. Also, the photocopies do not constitute as
electronic evidence as the information was not received, recorded,
retrieved or produced electronically. Moreover, it was not authenticated.
Finally, the required affidavit to prove the admissibility and evidentiary
weight of the alleged electronic evidence was not executed, much less
presented in evidence. Therefore, the photocopies must be stricken off
the record. Aside from being not properly identified by any competent
witness, the loss of the principals was not established by any competent
proof. NAPOCOR filed a motion for reconsideration, however, it was
denied. Petition for certiorari filed with the CA was likewise denied.
Petitioner insists that the photocopies presented as documentary
evidence actually constitute electronic evidence based on its own
premise that an electronic evidence is NOT limited to information that is
received, recorded, retrieved or prod uced electronically. Rather, the
petitioner maintains that an electronic document can also refer to other
modes of written expression that is produced electronically, such as
photocopies. They attempted to justify the admission of the photocopies,
contendi ng that photocopies offered are equivalent to the original of the
by any person knowing the fact. The loss may be
shown by any person who knew the fact of its loss,
or by anyone who made, in the judgment of the
court, a sufficient examination in the place or
places where the document or papers of similar
character are usually kept by the person in whose
custody the document lost was, and has been
unable to find it or who has made any other
investigation which is sufficient to satisfy the court
that the instrument is indeed lost.
The pieces of documentary evidence by NAPOCOR
were not properly identified by any competent
witness. As correctly pointed out by Bangpai, the
witnesses did not have personal knowledge of and
participation in the preparation and making of the
pieces of documentary evidence. The pieces of the
documentary evidence were merely photocopies
of purported documents or papers. Section 3 of
Rule 130 of the Rules of Court states that when the
subject of inquiry are the contents of documents,
no evidence shall be admissible other than the
original documents themselves, except in certain
cases specifically enumerated therein. NAPOCOR
has not shown that the non-presentation or non-
production of its original pieces of documentary
evidence falls under such exceptions. The pieces of
documentary evidence do not constitute as
electronic evidence. The information therein were
not received, retrieved, or produced electronically.
NAPOCOR has not properly authenticated such
evidence as electronic documents. Lastly, it has not
established by affidavit the admissibility and
evidentiary weight of the said documentary
evidence.
The court was correct in rejecting the photocopies
as they violate the best evidence rule and therefore
are of no probative value being incompetent p
ieces of evidence. Petitioner should have resented
the originals of the documents instead of the
photocopies it offered as evidence, or at least laid
the predicate for the admission of the said
photocopies.
 document.

1. WON the photocopies of documents should be admitted? (NO)

2. WON the photocopies are equivalent to the original documents based

on the Rules of Electronic Evidence? (NO)

People vs. Tan – Xerox ok

Seiler vs. Lucas Film – star wars

People vs. Tandoy – dangerous drugs act; Xerox copy of marked bill

US vs. Gregorio and Balistoy – there was allegedly a sale of a piece of land; what was presented was only a copy of the original and not the original

Fiscal of Pampanga vs. Reyes and Guevarra – libelous article, Ing Mangumasid

Vda. Corpus de Brabangco – lost the deed of sale during the war, witness presented