Set B: Case No.

Philippine Veterans Affairs Office v. Brigida V. Segundo

164 SCRA 365
August 15, 1988

FACTS:

Brigida V. Segundo is the widow of the late Feliciano Segundo, a veteran of the World
War II. After the death of her husband, she applied for pension benefits with the Philippine
Veterans Affairs. Her application was approved effective April of 1947 and she became entitled
to a monthly pension for life on condition that she remains unremarried and that no other similar
benefits from the U.S. Government have been granted to her.

In November of 1951, PVA cancelled and terminated Segundo’s monthly pension

benefits because she is a recipient of a similar benefit from the U. S. Veterans Administration,
which is a violation of its standing policy.

However, in a SC decision in the case of Del Mar v. Philippine Veterans Administration,

it declared that the standing policy of PVA is null and void. Despite of this decision of the SC,
the respondent still refused to restore the monthly pension of Segundo.

In a decision of the trial court promulgated in March 1975, directing PVA to pay
Segundo her monthly pension effective November 1951.

Philippine Veterans Affairs assailed the decision of the trial court contending that it erred
in deciding that the right of Segundo to compel them to restore her pension had not prescribed;
that the ruling in Del Mar v. Philippine Veterans Administration is not applicable in the case; and
that the trial court should have dismissed the petition of mandamus for lack of cause of action for
her failure to demand the restoration of her pension and there was no refusal on their part.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the decision of the SC in the Del Mar v. Philippine Veterans
Administration is controlling in the case at bar.

RULING:

The ruling of the SC to the contention of the PVA that the Del Mar v. Philippine Veterans
Administration is not applicable on the case at bar is untenable. It is reiterated that the decision
of the SC in applying or interpreting the Laws or the Constitution form part of the legal system
of the Philippines and in effect form part of the law by their own right because they interpret
what the law say or mean. Unlike the rulings of the lower courts, which bind the parties to
specific cases alone, SC judgements are universal in their scope and application, and equally
mandatory in character.

Set B: Case No. 6

Hernando Gener v. Gregorio De Leon and Zenaida Faustino

G. R. No. 130730
October 19, 2001

FACTS:
 A petition for Review on Certiorari was filed for the decision of the Court of Appeals
reversing the decision of the RTC of Malolos, Bulacan which set aside the decision of the MTC
of Norzagaray, Bulacan in a forcible entry case filed by the respondensts Spouses Gregorio De
Leonand Zenaida Faustino against the petitioner Hernando Gener.

The forcible entry case was initiated on April 30, 1990 before the Municipal Trial Court
of Norzagaray, Bulacan. The respondents alleged that they are the original claimants and actual
possessors in good faith under a bona fide claim of ownership of a parcel of agricultural land
situated at Poblacion, Norzagaray, Bulacan.

Petitioner alleged that he is the real owner and lawful and actual possessor of the land in
dispute evidenced by a notarized deed of sale executed on October 10, 1988 by Benjamin
Joaquin, heir of the previous owner, Proceso Joaquin. Further, he claimed that the said fact is
admitted and recognized by Gorgonio de Leon in an affidavit he executed.

Petitioner further averred that it was respondents who forcibly entered his lot in question
as evidenced by two criminal cases which petitioner filed in the Municipal Trial Court which has
no jurisdiction over the action since the forcible entry suit filed by respondents was filed beyond
the one year period.

The MTC of Norzagaray, Bulacan rendered judgment in favor of the respondents

(plaintiff therein) and against the petitioner (defendants therein). On appeal to the RTC of
Malolos, Bulacan, the said court rendered a decision reversing the decision of the Municipal
Trial Court of Norzagaray, and thereby dismissed herein respondents’ complaint for forcible
entry.

Insisting on the validity of their cause, respondents interposed a petition for review with
the Court of Appeals which reversed the decision of the Regional Trial Court and reinstated the
decision of the Municipal Trial Court. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the
Court of Appeals.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the CA erred in grave abuse of discretion in finding that petitioner
forcibly excluded respondents from the lot in question.

RULING:

Section 1, Rule 70 of the Revised Rules of Court 18 requires that in actions for forcible
entry the plaintiff is allegedly deprived of the possession of land or building by force,
intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth and that the action shall be filed within one year from the
time of such unlawful deprivation of possession.

To support the respondents’ allegation of prior possession, primarily relied upon the
testimonies of the witnesses presented in the MTC in which the Appellate Court made much of
the testimony that it was petitioner who forcibly excluded respondents from possession of the
land.

However, the MTC and CA totally overlooked the fact that the petitioner’s testimony of
prior possession was substantiated by several documentary evidence. As against the mere
testimonial evidence relied upon by respondents that they were forcibly ejected from the land by
petitioner, the documentary evidence of petitioner’s prior possession, more particularly the
evidence of the two incidents must prevail. Oral testimony, depending as it does exclusively on
human memory, is not as reliable as written or documentary evidence, especially when said
documentary evidence is not opposed.
 That the MTC should have taken judicial notice of the said criminal cases involving the
subject parcel of land and pending in its docket. While as a general rule the court is not
authorized to take judicial notice of the contents of the records of other cases even when such
case is tried or pending on the same court, the exception to this rule is that in the absence of
objection of the other party, the court may treat such evidence as part of the original record of the
case when it is presented or referred to with the knowledge of the adverse party.

Hence, the challenged decision of the CA is reversed and set aside. The complaint for
forcible entry is dismissed