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?

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?