3

STATE PROSECUTORS,complainants,
vs.
JUDGE MANUEL T. MURO, Regional Trial Court, Branch 54, Manila respondent.

FACTS :
State Prosecutors charged respondent Judge Manuel T. Muro with ignorance of the law, grave misconduct and
violations of Rules 2.01, 3.01 and 3.02 of the Code of Judicial Conduct for dismissing eleven cases solely on the
basis of the report published from newpapers.
Respondent judge filed his comment, contending, that there was no need to await publication of the Central Bank
(CB) circular repealing the existing law on foreign exchange controls for the simple reason that the public
announcement made by the President in several newspapers of general circulation lifting foreign exchange
controls was total, absolute, without qualification, and was immediately effective.

ISSUE :
WON the respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion in taking notice on the statement of the president
lifting the foreign exchange published in the newspaper as basis for dismissing the case.
RULING:
YES , respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion in taking notice on the statement of the president
lifting the foreign exchange published in the newspaper as basis for dismissing the case.
Matters of judicial notice have three material requisites: (1) the matter must be one of common and general
knowledge; (2) it must be well and authoritatively settled and not doubtful or uncertain; and (3) it must be known to
be within the limits of the jurisdiction of the court. The provincial guide in determining what facts may be assumed
to be judicially known is that of notoriety. Hence, it can be said that judicial notice is limited to facts evidenced by
public records and facts of general notoriety.
In this case , the respondent Judge, in the guise of exercising discretion and on the basis of a mere newspaper
account which is sometimes even referred to as hearsay evidence twice removed, took judicial notice of the
supposed lifting of foreign exchange controls, a matter which was not and cannot be considered of common
knowledge or of general notoriety.
Evidently, it was impossible for respondent judge, and it was definitely not proper for him, to have taken
cognizance of CB Circular No. 1353, when the same was not yet in force at the time the improvident order of
dismissal was issued.
 4
G.R. No. L-17885
June 30, 1965
GABRIEL P. PRIETO,plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
MEDEN ARROYO, JACK ARROYO, NONITO ARROYO and ZEFERINO ARROYO, JR.,defendants-appellees.

Zeferino Arroyo, Sr. filed a petition for registration of several parcels of land. After the proper proceedings covering
said lot, the same was issued in his name. In the same year and in the same Court, Prieto filed a petition for
registration of an adjoining parcel of land. As a result, an Original Certificate of Title was issued in his name.

After the death of Arroyo, Sr., his OCT was cancelled. Consequently, TCT was issued in the names of his heirs,
the defendants in this case. The heirs filed a case in which they claimed that the technical description in their
transfer certificate of title and in the original certificate of their predecessor did not conform with that embodied in
the decision of the land registration court. Hence, they prayed that said description be corrected pursuant to
Section 112 of the Land Registration Act.

The court issued an order directing the Register of Deeds to change, upon payment of his fees, the description in
the TCT .

On the other hand, Prieto filed against the defendants a petition to annul the order . However, at the hearing of
the petition , neither he nor his counsel appeared. Consequently, the trial court issued an order dismissing the
petition for failure to prosecute.

Aggrieved , Prieto filed against the same defendants the present action for annulment .

Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground of res judicata. The court granted the motion.

Appellant contends that said order could not have the effect of a judgment because the Court did not acquire
jurisdiction over the persons of the respondents therein, defendants-appellees here, as they did not file any
opposition or responsive pleading in that case.

On the other hand, appellees contend that they had voluntarily submitted to the court's jurisdiction after they were
served copies of the petition.

ISSUE:
Whether it was proper to dismiss the complaint on the ground of res adjudicata

RULING :

YES, it was proper to dismiss the complaint on the ground of res adjudicata.

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.
Moreover , 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.

In conclusion, 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.