Republic vs CA, 296 SCRA 171 181-182 (1998)

“failure to deny the genuineness and due execution of an actionable document does not bar a party at the trial that there is a mistake or imperfection in the writing, or that it does not express the true agreement of the parties, or that the agreement is invalid or that there is an intrinsic ambiguity in the writing.”

Facts:

Petitioner files an expropriation case against the Quetulio et al for the two parcels of land to be used for constructing the terminal building for international flights in Laoag International Airport. A compromise agreement was entered by the parties setting forth the just compensation for the expropriated property which was adopted by the court. Harold Hernando, representing the respondents as their attorney-in-fact filed a petition for the issuance of a duplicate copy of the said property and sold the same to spouses Abadilla. The petitioner files a complaint for the rescission of the deed of sale and cancellation of the transfer of certificate of title, reconveyance and damages against the respondents contending that the sale was null and void because the property is already owned by the Republic and that the vendees were in bad faith with their prior knowledge of the first sale. Hernando filed an answer beyond the reglementary period but was allowed by the court to present his answer praying for the dismissal of the complaint on the basis of the “affidavit of revocation” cancelling the compromise agreement between the Republic’s counsel in the person of Atty. Pedro who allegedly withheld the 10 checks as part of the consideration of the expropriated property and signed the rescission of the compromise agreement and deed of conveyance in favor of the Abadilla spouses.

Plaintiff failed to reply to the answer of the respondent who was then held by the trial court to have admitted the due execution and genuineness of the instruments presented by respondents in their motion to dismiss. As a result, the court finds that the plaintiff, after having admitted the genuineness of the documents, in effect waived/abandoned its claim to the land in suit. Motion for reconsideration was denied hence the petitioner filed a petition for certiorari to the CA which was dismissed after treating the same as an ordinary appeal filed out of time.

People vs Cartuano, 255 SCRA 403 (1996)

“the court can take judicial notice of blood grouping test which can establish conclusively that a man is not the father of a child, where the child has none of the father’s phenotypes. However, blood grouping test cannot show that a man is the father of the child, as the presence of the father’s phenotypes in the child can only show the possibility that he is.”

Facts:

Cartuano was charged for 2 counts of rape against Adela Villa, a mentally retarded person which was allegedly committed in May 4, 1991 and August 20, 1991. The complaint was filed by the victim’s father, Antonio Villa who testified that he learned about the rape when he went home on August 20, 1991 and saw his 5 years old grandson crying. The child explained that he was crying because the accused threatened him with a sharp instrument and pulled her aunt Adela Villa inside the room and witnessed that he had carnal knowledge with her. Adela also testified and related how she was raped against her will. The accused provided an alibi that he could not have been at the victim’s house when the alleged rape happened because he was far away working as a farm worker where he stayed and lived with his employer. It was only after his uncle died in August 3, 1991 when he went home to their place and stayed with his aunt. He returned to his employer’s place in Aug. 19, 1991 to ask permission that he will stop working for him but he was not allowed to leave his work. But he was permitted by his employer to go home again to inform his aunt that he will continue working for his employer and came home to his aunt’s house in August 21, 1991. He was resting when the Brgy. Captain came over to invite him to the police station. The court rendered decision finding the accused guilty of two counts of rape and ordered to support the victim’s child. Assailing the decision of the trial court, the accused on appeal indicates the assignment of errors for failure of the court to give credence that the testimony of the father of the accused is purely hearsay; that the testimony of the victim is not convincing; that the court erred in holding that the father of the child of the victim is the accused and for convicting the accused despite the failure of the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Issue: Whether or not the court erred in convicting the accused?

People vs Villagonzalo, 238 SCRA 215 (Nov. 18, 1994)

“the court takes judicial notice of the common (human) experience of mankind and non-adherence thereto renders testimonies inherently improbable.”

Facts:
Accused-appellants Leoniza Villagonzalo and Renito Moro were accused for committing a crime of murder and was sentenced guilty by the court. Both were allegedly conspirators in killing Ricardo Tan, the common-law spouse of Villagonzalo and they conspired with other respondents Dela Cruz and Asentista who were not apprehended by the police. Dela Cruz and Asentista were allegedly hired by both Moro and Villagonzalo to kill Tan as evidenced by the testimony of Tito Alquizar and Prescilla Villarin who also work for Tan. Villarin is the helper and Alquizar is both the helper and farmhand of Tan.

According to Alquizar and Villarin, they were present when the four accused were contemplating a plan on how to kill Tan. They alleged to be present from the time Moro and Villagonzalo offered Dela Cruz and Asentista money to kill Tan and also during the time Moro provided a gun to both men before the victim was shot. They alleged that Moro and Villagonzalo are having an affair and want to kill Tan so they can live together. The court rendered a judgment of guilty for murder to Villagonzalo and Moro. The appellants now pray for the reversal of the judgment contending that the lower court erred in believing prosecution witnesses Alquizar and Villarin whose testimony are patently false and contrary to human experience and assailed the credibility of the witnesses whose testimonies were relied upon by the court in giving judgment.

Issue: Whether or not the witnesses Alquizar and Villarin credible witnesses?

People vs Yabut, 311 SCRA 590 (July 28, 1999)

“judicial notice can be taken of the fact that testimonies in court are much more exact and elaborate than those stated in the sworn statement.”

Facts:

Yabut is accused for a crime of rape of a 10-year child and was sentenced as guilty by the trial court. Yabut now assails the decision of the court contending that there were irregularities on the testimony of the victim during the interrogation of the police and what she testified in court. He contends that (1)  She told the police that she was awakened by the accused who is pulling down her panties but in court she testified that she was awakened by a man making an up and down movement on top of her, (2) it was impossible for the victim to see who her assailant as it was dark in the room; (3) it was bizarre to believe when the victim said he came back to get his driver’s license; (4) that the testimony of the victim’s father showed that the victim did not show any anxiety when her father came home after the incident happened; (5) pointed out that the medical result showed the victim to be negative in spermatozoa hence no rape occurred, (6) it is unlikely for the victim to be raped as she was sleeping with her other siblings in the room and (7) victim’s allegation that there was a lock in the room is contradictory to the testimony of her father who said the room has no lock.

Gener vs De Leon, GR No. 130730, October 19, 2001

“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 pending in the same court, except when with the knowledge of the adverse party reference is made to these cases and the latter did not object thereto.”

Facts

Respondent De Leon filed a forcible entry case against petitioner Gener, alleging that he is the original claimant and actual possessor in good faith under a bona fide claim of ownership to a certain parcel of agricultural land in Bulacan. The said land was part of the bed of the Angat River which was formerly adjacent to the boundary of lot that is covered by the Certificate of Title of De Leon. A flood caused that part of the river to develop and elevated and dried up land where De Leon extended occupation, planting and cultivating coconuts, bananas and vegetables. In May 1989, Gener allegedly through force, threat and intimidation unlawfully entered the property and deprived De Leon possession thereof. De Leon demand Gener to vacate the premises but was ignored. Efforts to settle the dispute amicably thru the brgy justice system did not prosper prompting De Leon to file an ejectment case against Gener.

Gener on the other hand denied all allegations of the respondent and claimed to be the real owner of the property as evidenced by the notarized deed of sale which was executed in October 1988 by Benjamin Joaquin who is the heir of the former possessor of the land, Proceso Joaquin. The land was declared for taxation purposes in the name of Gener and declared the land as private. De Leon’s father, in an affidavit, mentioned that P. Joaquin was the owner the neighboring lot in the east side of their lot.

Gener further attested that it was De Leon who forcibly entered the lot in question as evidenced by two criminal cases on malicious mischief he filed against the workers of De Deleon who entered the disputed land and destroyed the planted trees thereon. He also invoked that the right to file an action for ejection already prescribed after filing the same beyond the 1 year prescription period. Trial ensued where Gener is the only witness to his defense while De Leon presented oral testimonies of witnesses who stated that he was the owner of the lot in dispute. Gener presented a deed of sale, a tax declaration of the land in his name and recalled the 2 criminal cases he filed on malicious mischief against the worker of De Leon. The MTC ruled in favor of De Leon but the decision was reversed by the RTC and dismissed the forcible entry case against Gener. On appeal, the appellate court reversed the decision of the RTC and reinstated the decision of the MTC. A motion for reconsideration was then filed before the SC.

Republic vs CA, 277 SCRA 633, 641 (1997)

”Judicial notice will be taken of the record, pleading or judgment of a case in another court between the same parties or involving one of the same parties as well as of the record of another case between different parties in the same court. Judicial notice will also be taken of court personnel.”

Facts:

Josefa Gacot claimed a parcel of land, the area of which is not indicated, in Palawan. Gacot claims that she has been in actual possession of the property for more than 30 year and bought the land from Cipriana Dantic-Llanera by virtue of a deed of sale and introduced improvement thereon and paid taxes for the land in her name. It appears that a certain Ceferino Sabenacio is a co-owner of the land who later waived his claim in favor of Gacot and admitted that he was only a boundary owner of the land and it was Gacot who is in actual possession of it. Prior to the hearing, the Land Registration Authority intervened, calling the attention of the court on the decision made by Judge Lorenzo Garlitos declaring the property as owned by the Republic. However, it did not bar Gacos from filing her answer, presenting evidence of her actual possession of the said property and tax declaration and payment made in her name. The counsel of the petitioner did not present evidence and submitted the case for resolution.

The court rendered a decision in favor of Gacot thus the Solicitor General elevated the case to the CA and filed a motion for the court to reopen and remand the case back to the trial court to allow the Republic to present the decision of Judge Garlitos which motion was granted by the court. The hearing was set several times and Gacot was able to submit her memorandum while the Republic was unable to submit any evidence to support the claim of the government in court. For failure of the government to refute and to present their evidence contrary to Gacot’s claim, the court decided not to disturb its former decision.

Philippine Veterans Affairs vs Segundo, 164 SCRA 365 (8/15/1988)

“lower courts from the CA down to the lowest level must take judicial notice of decisions of the SC as they are duty bound to know the rulings of the high tribunal and to apply them in the adjudication of cases, they being part of the legal system.”

Facts:

Brigida Segundo is the widow of a veteran of the 2^nd World War, the late Feliciano Segundo who applied for a pension benefit from the Phil. Veterans Affairs. Her application was approved in April 1947 and was entitled in receiving a monthly pension for life on the condition that she will remain unmarried and no similar benefits from the US Government has been granted to her. In November 1951, the respondent cancelled and terminated the monthly pension benefits because she became a recipient of a similar benefit from the US Veterans Administration which is in violation of the Phil Veterans Affairs standing policy. However in June 1973, the Supreme Court declared the other policy Segundo was receiving as null and void in the case of Del Mar vs Phil. Veterans Administration. Despite this ruling by the SC, Philippine Veterans Affairs refused to restore the monthly pension of Segundo. The trial court, in a decision promulgated in March 1975, ordered the Phil. Veterans to pay Segundo her monthly life pension effective November 1951.

Phil. Veterans Affair now assailed the decision of the 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 vs Phil. Veterans Administration is not applicable in the case and that the court should have dismissed the petition for 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.

Prieto vs Arroyo, 14 SCRA 549 (1965)

“if the party desires the court to take judicial notice of the record of another case, he should file the necessary pleading for the purpose and give the other party the chance to be heard on the matter.”

Facts

Gabriel Prieto and Zeferino Arroyo are owners of parcels of land adjoining to each other. When Arroyo died, the certificate of title in his name was cancelled and a transfer of certificate of title was then issued to his heirs.  The heirs of Arroyo filed a petition before the CFI claiming that the technical description in their title does not conform to the decision of the land registration court where the area given in their title is less than 157 sq meters than to what they are entitled and thus prayed for the correction of the description in their title. The court directed the Register of Deeds to change the description in the transfer certificate of title. Prieto now filed an action against the defendants with the petition to annul the order made by the court claiming that a portion of his land was unjustly added to the defendant’s title. But during the special proceeding Prieto and his counsel failed to appear and the court issued an order dismissing the petition for failure to prosecute.

Prieto filed an action for annulment of the special proceeding and prayed to reconvey the 157 sq meters of lot that was taken from him and was added to the title of the defendants. Defendants move to dismiss the complaint on the ground of res judicata which the court allowed. 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.

Issue:

Whether or not the court should have taken judicial notice on the land registration case adjudicated in the same court instead of dismissing the first petition to annul the special proceeding?

State Prosecutors vs Muro, 236 SCRA 505 (19 September 1994)

“the doctrine of judicial notice rests on the wisdom and discretion of the courts. The power to take judicial notice is to be exercised by the courts with caution; care must be taken that the requisite notoriety exists; and reasonable doubt on the subject should be resolved in the negative”

Facts:

The state prosecutors who are members of the DOJ Panel of Prosecution filed a complaint against respondent Judge Muro on the ground of ignorance of the law, grave misconduct and violation of the provisions in the Code of Judicial Conduct. The case at bar involves the prosecution of the 11 charges against Imelda Marcos in violation of the Central Bank Foreign Exchange Restriction in the Central Bank Circular 960. The respondent judge dismissed all 11 cases solely on the basis of the report published from the 2 newspapers, which the judge believes to be reputable and of national circulation, that the Pres. of the Philippines lifted all foreign exchange restrictions. The respondent’s decision was founded on his belief that the reported announcement of the Executive Department in the newspaper in effect repealed the CB 960 and thereby divested the court of its jurisdiction to further hear the pending case thus motu propio dismissed the case. He further contends that the announcement of the President as published in the newspaper has made such fact a public knowledge that is sufficient for the judge to take judicial notice which is discretionary on his part.