”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.
The Republic assailed the
decision of the court invoking 2061 that set the time limit of filing an
application for the reopening of judicial proceedings on certain lands declared
as public land, a provision thereof provides that the application for judicial
proceeding should not extend beyond Dec. 31, 1968. Gacot only filed her claim
on June 7, 1971 thus the court did not acquired jurisdiction on her claim as
she did not file her answer within the period fixed by RA 2061.
Issue: Whether or not the court has acquired jurisdiction over the
case?
Ruling:
The Court held that what the
Solicitor General claims would have been operative if it were able to present
evidence during the rehearing of the case proving the alleged decision of Judge
Garlitos declaring the property as public land. However they failed to offer
evidence on their claim and the court cannot take judicial notice of such claim
in the absence of any proof presented before the court. The appellate court
remanded the case back to the trial court to allow the Republic to present
evidence which they failed to do.
It is a settled rule that the
court shall not consider evidence that has not been formally offered before it.
The court cannot take judicial knowledge of the contents of the record of other
cases, in the adjudication of the cases pending before them even if the trial
judge knows or remember the contents thereof. While the case is on trial,
Josefa Gacot passed away and her heirs were impleaded to substitute her as the
party to the case. The court held to lax on the technical rules of procedure in
the case and to expedite the proceeding take a liberal construction on the laws
to meet advance the cause of substantial justice. Because the lot area awarded
to Gacot was not specified in the records and based on the certification of the
Forest Management Services of the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, some of the lots in the area are classified as alienable and
disposable land, while some portion are timber land that forms part of the Mangrove
Swamp Forest Reserve. The court decided to remand back to the trial court the
case for proper disposition of the conflicting claims of the parties.
No comments:
Post a Comment