Doctrines:

Florentino Gallego V. People Of The Philippines And The Court Of Appeals

There is nothing in the law that prohibits a court, like the Court of Appeals, from taking
cognizance of a municipal ordinance. On the contrary, Section 5 of Rule 123 of the
Rules of Court enjoins courts to take judicial notice of matters which are capable of
unquestionable demonstration. Court of First Instance should take judicial notice of
municipal ordinances within their respective jurisdictions.

Republic vs. Cojuangco, et. al, G.R. No. 180702, 12 April 2011
Judicial notice is based upon convenience and expediency for it would certainly be
superfluous, inconvenient, and expensive both to parties and the court to require proof,
in the ordinary way, of facts which are already known to courts.  However, a court
cannot take judicial notice of a factual matter in controversy.  Genuine factual matters
should be proven with relevant and competent evidence other than the exhibits offered.

Mahilum vs. Spouses Ilano, G.R. No. 197923, June 22, 2015
A negative pregnant, that is, a denial pregnant with the admission of the substantial
facts in the pleading responded to which are not squarely denied. It was in effect an
admission of the averments it was directed at. Stated otherwise, a negative pregnant is
a form of negative expression which carries with it an affirmation or at least an
implication of some kind favorable to the adverse party. It is a denial pregnant with an
admission of the substantial facts alleged in the pleading. Where a fact is alleged with
qualifying or modifying language and the words of the allegation as so qualified or
modified are literally denied, it has been held that the qualifying circumstances alone
are denied while the fact itself is admitted.