“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.
Issue: Whether or not the ejectment case may lie against Gener?
Ruling:
The court ruled that in the
ejectment case the issue to be resolved is who would be entitled to the
physical or material possession of the property in dispute. Respondent De Leon
has his claim founded from the presentation of testimonial evidence of various
witnesses while Gener has his claim founded on documentary evidence which the
MTC failed to appreciate during the trial. As against
the mere testimonial evidence relied upon by respondents that they were
forcibly ejected from the land by petitioner on May 8, 1989, the documentary
evidence of petitioner’s prior possession, more particularly the evidence of
the two (2) criminal charges he filed. 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. The MTC should have taken judicial notice of
the criminal cases presented by Gener. 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 who fails to object
thereto, the MTC should have taken judicial notice of such fact to resolve the
case in an expedient manner.
It can thus inferred that
Gener took possession of the property earlier than Oct 1988 which was the date
he first filed the criminal case on malicious mischief and De Leon filed the
petition for forcible entry in April 1990, the cause of action already
prescribed thus the MTC has no jurisdiction to hear the case. The SC dismissed
the complaint on forcible entry without the prejudice to file an appropriate
action in the RTC.
No comments:
Post a Comment