1. Judicial Notive, as provided in the c ase of Peltan vs.

CA, is the cognizance of certain facts which

judges may properly may properly take and act on without proof because they already know them. The
object of judicial notice is to save time, labor and expense in securing and introducing evidence on
matters which are not ordinarily capable of dispute and are not bona fide disputed and the tenor of
which can safely be assumed from the tribunal's general knowledge or a slight search on its past.

The counsel of Dana is correct, as provided in the general rule regarding Judicial Notice of records of
another case previousky tried, courts generally are not authorized to take judicial notice of the contents
of the record of other cases, even when such cases have been tried or are pending in the same court
and pending before the same judge, however, it is an exception that when the present action is closely
interwoven or so clearly interdependent to another case in respect to the matter in controversy, there
will be a judicial notve to another case. In the case at bar since, the argument of the counsel of Dana
that it is indispensable for the Angeles Court to take judicial notice whule the petition at the Taguig
court is pending. Thereforem, the counsel of Dana is Correct.

2.

A. No, the statement of Anthony was not admissible as a dying declaration. Under the Rules on
Evidence, a dying declaration must relate to the circumstances surrounding his death. Here the
declaration did not relate to the circumstances surrounding Anthony’s death but to his and Blake and
Charles' participation in the robbery. Therefore, in the case at bar, the statement was not admissible as
a dying declaration.

B. No, the statement of Anthony was not admissible for the reason that it is against Blake and Charles' as
the statement of a co-conspirator. As provided under the Rules on Evidence, an extrajudicial statement
of a co-conspirator in order to be binding upon the other co-conspirators must have been made during
the existence of the conspiracy. In the case at bar, the conspiracy was no longer existing when Anthony
made the statement. Therefore, the same shall not be binding upon Blake and Charles.

C. Yes, the statement of Anthony can be presented agaist Blake and Charles on the ground that it is a
declaration against interest, for the reason that declaration against testimony, it should come from
either a person deceased or is unable to testify. In the given case at bar, the action of Anthony in
confessing their crime to the policemen shall be valid and can be presented as an statement agaisnt
Blake and Charles.

4. Parol evidence rule is stated under Section 10 of Rule 130 which stattes that when the terms of an
agreement have been reduced to writing, it is considered as containing all the terms agreed upon and
there can be, as between the parties and their successors in interest, no evidence of such terms other
than the contents of the written agreement. There are some exceptions to the rule as provided that
such as an intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written agreement, failure of the written
agreement to express the true intent and agreement of the parties, the validity of the written
agreement, or the existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their successors in interest after
the execution of the written agreement.

No, the rule shall not admit as an exception for the reason that a parol evidence rule applies only to the
parties to the contract and their successors-ininterest. In the case at bar, the one offering the parol
evidence is the defendant in the action for recovery filed by

Janna who can be considered as a stranger to the deed of sale.

Therefore, it can be concluded that, she is not bound by the parol evidence rule.