Você está na página 1de 34

Ruben Gerald V.

Ricasata III
3B
Evidence Digests|Bonifacio
200
9
Rule 128 Admissibility of Evidence
Reyes v. Court of Appeals
Doctrine The Rules of Court shall not be alicable in agrarian cases even in a
suletor! character. The "uantu# of evidence re"uired in such cases is no #ore
than substantial evidence.
!acts
$endo%a o&ned ' arcels of far# lots. The lots &ere tenanted b! dela Cru%.
(hen dela Cru% died) his &ife clai#ed that she subrogated her husband to
the tenanc! rights of her husband.
*o&ever) she &as revented b! Re!es) +ara!ao and $anangha!a
,etitioners- fro# entering the re#ises. These eole &ere baranga!
o.cials. The! &ere accused of interfering &ith the tenanc! relationshi.
The /grarian Court ordered that the Eufrocina be restored to the ossession
of the said far# lots and ordered Re!es) +ara!ao and $anangha!a to a!
da#ages to Eufrocian solidaril!.
"ssue
The etitioners contend that the evidence resented b! Eufrocina is insu.cient to
hold the# accountable. /ccording to the#) the /.davit of Eufrocina is not
ad#issible because the a.ant &as not resented in court for cross0e1a#ination. Is
their contention correct2
#eld
3o. The rules on evidence are entirel! not alicable to agrarian cases even in
suletor! character.
(e rule that the trial court did not err &hen it favorabl! considered the a.davits of
Eufrocina and Efren Tecson although the a.ants &ere not resented and sub4ected
to cross0e1a#ination. 5ection 67 of +.D. 3o. 897 rovides that the :Rules of Court
shall not be alicable in agrarian cases even in a suletor! character.: The sa#e
rovision states that :In the bearing) investigation and deter#ination of an!
"uestion or controvers!) a.davits and counter0a.davits #a! be allo&ed and are
ad#issible in evidence.:
6 $ + a g e
Ruben Gerald V. Ricasata III
3B
Evidence Digests|Bonifacio
200
9
%eople v. &urco
Doctrine /d#issibilit! of evidence is di;erent fro# the robative or &eight of
evidence.
Rodegelio Turco) <r. ,Turco- &as charged for allegedl! raing his second
cousin) 6' !ear0old Escelea Tabada ,Tabada-.
*e lured Tabada fro# her house) then covered her face &ith a to&el and
laced his right hand on her nec=) and too= her to a grass! area) &here he
forced hi#self on her. /fter&ards) he threated to =ill her if she told an!one.
The trial court ruled against Turco and sentenced hi# to su;er the enalt! of
reclusion eretua and to a! da#ages to Tabada.
Turco argued that his conviction is not suorted b! roof be!ond reasonable
doubt considering that other than the &ritten state#ent of Tabada before the
+olice 5tation and before the Cler= of Court of the trial court) and her
testi#on! during direct e1a#ination) no other evidence &as resented to
conclusivel! rove that there &as ever raed at all> that nothing in Tabada?s
testi#on! clearl! and convincingl! sho&s that she &as able to identif! Turco
as her raist) since her face had been covered &ith a to&el> and that no
actual rrof &as resented that the rae actuall! haened since the #edico0
legal o.cer &ho reared the #edical certi@cate &as not resented in court
to e1lain the sa#e.
"ssue
Turco argued that since the #edico0legal o.cer &as not resented) the #edical
certi@cate issued b! the latter cannot be ad#itted as evidence. Is his contention
correct2
#eld
3o.
In +eole vs. Bernalde% ,sura-) the court a "uo erred in giving &eight to the
#edical certi@cate issued b! the e1a#ining h!sician desite the failure of the
latter to testif!. (hile the certi@cate could be ad#itted as an e1cetion to the
hearsa! rule since entries in o.cial records ,under 5ection 99) Rule 63A) Rules of
Court- constitute e1cetions to the hearsa! evidence rule) since it involved an
oinion of one &ho #ust @rst be established as an e1ert &itness) it could not be
given &eight or credit unless the doctor &ho issued) it could not be given &eight or
credit unless the doctor &ho issued it is resented in court to sho& his
"uali@cations. (e lace e#hasis on the distinction bet&een ad#issibilit! b!
evidence and the robative value thereof. Evidence is ad#issible &hen it is relevant
' $ + a g e
Ruben Gerald V. Ricasata III
3B
Evidence Digests|Bonifacio
200
9
to the issue and is not e1cluded b! the la& or the la& or the rules ,5ection 3) Rule
6'B) Rules of Court- or is co#etent. 5ince ad#issibilit! of evidence us deter#ined
b! its b! its relevance and co#etence) ad#issibilit! is) an a;air of logic and la&.
Cn the other hand) the &eight to be given to such evidence) once ad#itted)
deends on 4udicial evaluation &ithin the guidelines rovided in Rule 633 and the
4urisrudence laid do&n &ith the Court. thus) &hile evidence #a! be ad#issible) it
#a! be entitled to or no &eight at all. Conversel!) evidence &hich #a! have
evidentiar! &eight #a! be inad#issible because a secial rule forbids its recetion
,Regalado) Re#edial Da& Co#endiu#) Vol. II) 688B ed.) . EEA-.
(ithal) although the #edical certi@cate is an e1cetion to the hearsa! rule) hence
ad#issible as evidence) it has ver! little robative value due to the absence of the
e1a#ining h!sician. 3evertheless) it cannot be said that the rosecution relied
solel! on the #edical certi@cate ,stating that there &as FGhH!#en ruture)
secondar! to enile insertionI as &ell as Ffoul0s#elling discharges.I The diagnosis
&as FGrHutured h!#en secondar! to raeI G. 7B) RecordH-. In fact) reliance &as
#ade on the testi#on! of the victi# herself &hich) standing alone even &ithout
#edical e1a#ination) is su.cient to convict ,eole vs. Toaguen) 378 5CR/ 7A6
G688JH-. It is &ell0settled that a #edical e1a#ination is not indisensable in the
rosecution of rae ,+eole vs. Dacaba) G.R. 3o. 63AE86) 3ove#ber 6J) 6888>
+eole vs. 5ala%ar) 'EB 5CR/ EE G6887H> +eole vs. Venerable) sura-. It is enough
that the evidence on hand convinces the court that conviction is roer ,+eole vs.
/u1tero) sura-. In the instant case) the victi#?s testi#on! alone is credible and
su.cient to convict.
3 $ + a g e
Ruben Gerald V. Ricasata III
3B
Evidence Digests|Bonifacio
200
9
A'ustin v. Court of Appeals
Doctrine Crdering a erson to undergo D3/ testing is not against that erson?s
right against self0incri#ination.
!acts
Resondents Ke /ngela and her son $artin +rolla#ante sued $artin?s alleged
biological father) etitioner /rnel D. /gustin) for suort and suort
endente lite before the Regional Trial Court ,RTC- of Lue%on Cit!) Branch
6A7.GEH
In their co#laint) resondents alleged that /rnel courted Ke in 688') after
&hich the! entered into an inti#ate relationshi.
/rnel suosedl! i#regnated Ke on her 39th birthda! on 3ove#ber 6A)
6888. Desite /rnel?s insistence on abortion) Ke decided other&ise and gave
birth to their child out of &edloc=) $artin) on /ugust 66) 'AAA at the Caitol
$edical *osital in Lue%on Cit!.
The bab!?s birth certi@cate &as urortedl! signed b! /rnel as the father.
/rnel shouldered the re0natal and hosital e1enses but later refused Ke?s
reeated re"uests for $artin?s suort desite his ade"uate @nancial
caacit! and even suggested to have the child co##itted for adotion.
/rnel also denied having fathered the child.
Cn <ul! '3) 'AA') Ke and $artin #oved for the issuance of an order directing
all the arties to sub#it the#selves to D3/ aternit! testing ursuant to Rule
'B of the Rules of Court.
The Court granted such #otion.
"ssues
Is the said #otion against /gustin?s right to rivac! and right against self
incri#ination2
#eld
3o.
5igni@cantl!) &e uheld the constitutionalit! of co#ulsor! D3/ testing and the
ad#issibilit! of the results thereof as evidence. In that case) D3/ sa#les fro#
se#en recovered fro# a rae victi#?s vagina &ere used to ositivel! identif! the
accused <oel FMa&itI Natar as the raist. Natar clai#ed that the co#ulsor!
e1traction of his blood sa#le for D3/ testing) as &ell as the testing itself) violated
9 $ + a g e
Ruben Gerald V. Ricasata III
3B
Evidence Digests|Bonifacio
200
9
his right against self0incri#ination) as e#bodied in both 5ections 6' and 6J of
/rticle III of the Constitution. (e addressed this as follo&sO
The contention is untenable. The =ernel of the right is not against all co#ulsion)
but against testi#onial co#ulsion. The right against self0incri#ination is si#l!
against the legal rocess of e1tracting fro# the lis of the accused an ad#ission of
guilt. It does not al! &here the evidence sought to be e1cluded is not an
incri#ination but as art of ob4ect evidence.
In the instant case) the etitioner has in no &a! sho&n an! arbitrariness) assion)
re4udice or ersonal hostilit! that &ould a#ount to grave abuse of discretion on
the art of the Court of /eals. The resondent court acted entirel! &ithin its
4urisdiction in ro#ulgating its decision and resolution) and an! error #ade &ould
have onl! been an error in 4udg#ent. /s &e have discussed) ho&ever) the decision
of the resondent court) being @r#l! anchored in la& and 4urisrudence) &as
correct.
E $ + a g e
Ruben Gerald V. Ricasata III
3B
Evidence Digests|Bonifacio
200
9
(anaan v. "ntermediate Appellate Court
Doctrine E1tension of telehones cannot be considered devices used for &iretas.
Therefore) an! evidence obtained through such #ediu# is ad#issible under R/
9'AA rovided that it is not other&ise e1cluded b! other la&s or the Rules of Court.
!acts
Pon co#ing u &ith roosed conditions regarding the &ithdra&al of a
co#laint for direct assault @led against Deonardo Daconico b! $anuel
$ontebon) $ontebon?s la&!er) /tt!. Tito +intor) called u Daconico.
Daconico re"uested his o&n la&!er) /tt!. Gaanan) to secretl! listen to the
hone conversation through an e1tension so as to hear ersonall! the
roosed conditions for the settle#ent.
/tt!. Gaanan subse"uentl! e1ecuted an a.davit stating that he heard /tt!.
+intor de#anding an a#ount for the &ithdra&al of the case. 5uch a.davit
&as attached to a co#laint for robber! or e1tortion @led against /tt!. +intor.
/n entra#ent oeration &as organi%ed and +intor &as arrested through it.
/nother case &as @led) this ti#e) against /tt!. Gaanan for violation of R./.
3o. 9'AA.
/tt!. Gaanan &as held guilt! for violation of 5ection 6 of R./. 3o. 9'AA) the
/nti0(iretaing Da&.
"ssues
Is the act of /tt!. Gaanan of listening to a conversation through a telehone
e1tension considered a violation of the /nti0(iretaing Da&2
#eld
3o. E1tensions cannot be considered as one of the devices used in &iretaing.
In the case of E#ire Insurance Co#an! v. Ru@no ,8A 5CR/ 93J) 9930999-) &e
ruledO
QDi=e&ise) /rticle 63J' of the Civil Code stiulates that Rho&ever general the ter#s
of a contract #a! be) the! shall not be understood to co#rehend things that are
distinct and cases that are di;erent fro# those uon &hich the arties intended to
agree.: 5i#ilarl!) /rticle 63J9 of the sa#e Code rovides that :the various
stiulations of a contract shall be interreted together) attributing to the doubtful
ones that sense &hich #a! result fro# all of the# ta=en 4ointl!.:
111 111 111
7 $ + a g e
Ruben Gerald V. Ricasata III
3B
Evidence Digests|Bonifacio
200
9
QConse"uentl!) the hrase Rall liabilities or obligations of the decedent: used in
aragrah E,c- and J,d- should be then restricted onl! to those listed in the
Inventor! and should not be construed as to co#rehend all other obligations of the
decedent. The rule that Rarticulari%ation follo&ed b! a general e1ression &ill
ordinaril! be restricted to the for#er: is based on the fact in hu#an e1erience that
usuall! the #inds of arties are addressed seciall! to the articulari%ation) and
that the generalities) though broad enough to co#rehend other @elds if the! stood
alone) are used in conte#lation of that uon &hich the #inds of the arties are
centered. ,*o;#an v. Eastern (isconsin R.) etc.) Co.) 639 (is. 7A3) 7AJ> 66E 3(
3B3) cited in Krancisco) Revised Rules of Court ,Evidence-) 68J3 ed.) . 6BA06B6.Q
*ence) the hrase Qdevice or arrange#entQ in 5ection 6 of R/ 3o. 9'AA) although
not e1clusive to that enu#erated therein) should be construed to co#rehend
instru#ents of the sa#e or si#ilar nature) that is) instru#ents the use of &hich
&ould be tanta#ount to taing the #ain line of a telehone. It refers to
instru#ents &hose installation or resence cannot be resu#ed b! the art! or
arties being overheard because) b! their ver! nature) the! are not of co##on
usage and their urose is recisel! for taing) interceting or recording a
telehone conversation.
/n e1tension telehone is an instru#ent &hich is ver! co##on eseciall! no&
&hen the e1tended unit does not have to be connected b! &ire to the #ain
telehone but can be #oved fro# lace to lace &ithin a radius of a =ilo#eter or
#ore. / erson should safel! resu#e that the art! he is calling at the other end
of the line robabl! has an e1tension telehone and he runs the ris= of a third art!
listening as in the case of a art! line or a telehone unit &hich shares its line &ith
another.
QCo##on e1erience tells us that a call to a articular telehone nu#ber #a!
cause the bell to ring in #ore than one ordinaril! used instru#ent. Each art! to a
telehone conversation ta=es the ris= that the other art! #a! have an e1tension
telehone and #a! allo& another to overhear the conversation. (hen such ta=es
lace there has been no violation of an! rivac! of &hich the arties #a! co#lain.
Conse"uentl!) one ele#ent of 7AE) intercetion) has not occurred.Q
In the sa#e case) the Court further ruled that the conduct of the art! &ould di;er
in no &a! if instead of reeating the #essage he held out his hand0set so that
another could hear out of it and that there is no distinction bet&een that sort of
action and er#itting an outsider to use an e1tension telehone for the sa#e
urose.
J $ + a g e
Ruben Gerald V. Ricasata III
3B
Evidence Digests|Bonifacio
200
9
Kurther#ore) it is a general rule that enal statutes #ust be construed strictl! in
favor of the accused. Thus) in case of doubt as in the case at bar) on &hether or not
an e1tension telehone is included in the hrase Qdevice or arrange#entQ) the enal
statute #ust be construed as not including an e1tension telehone.
B $ + a g e
Ruben Gerald V. Ricasata III
3B
Evidence Digests|Bonifacio
200
9
)alcedo*+rta,e- v. Court of Appeals
Doctrine Pnder R./. 9'AA) it is unla&ful Ffor an! erson ) not being authori%ed b!
all the arties to an! rivate co##unication or so=en &ord) to ta an! &ire or
cable) or b! using an! other device or arrange#ent) to secretl! overhear) intercet)
or record such co##unication or so=en &ord b! using a device co##onl! =no&n
as a dictahone or dictagrah or detectahone or &al=ie0tal=ie or tae0recorder) or
ho&ever other&ise described.I The inad#issibilit! of such evidence obtained in
violation of said /ct is #andator! under the la&.
!acts
Rafael Crtane% @led &ith the Regional Trial Court a co#laint for annul#ent
of #arriage &ith da#ages against Teresita 5alcedo0Crtane%) on grounds of
lac= of #arriage license andSor s!chological incaacit! of Teresita.
/#ong the evidence orall! for#all! o;ered b! Crtane% &ere three cassette
taes of alleged telehone conversations bet&een Teresita and unidenti@ed
ersons.
"ssues
Teresita @led an ob4ectionSco##ent to Rafael?s oral o;er of evidence) assailing the
ad#issibilit! in evidence of the cassette taes. Can her ob4ection be sustained2
#eld
Nes. The evidence resented are inad#issible b! virtue of R/ 9'AA.
Re. /ct 3o. 9'AA entitled Q/n /ct to +rohibit and +enali%e (ire Taing and Cther
Related Violations of the +rivac! of Co##unication) and for other urosesQ
e1ressl! #a=es such tae recordings inad#issible in evidence. The relevant
rovisions of Re. /ct 3o. 9'AA are as follo&sO
Q5ection 6. It shall be unla&ful for an! erson) not being authori%ed b! all the
arties to an! rivate co##unication or so=en &ord) to ta an! &ire or cable) or
b! using an! other device or arrange#ent) to secretl! overhear) intercet) or record
such co##unication or so=en &ord b! using a device co##onl! =no&n as a
dictahone or dictagrah or detectahone or &al=ie0tal=ie or tae0recorder) or
ho&ever other&ise described. 1 1 1Q
Q5ection 9. /n! co##unication or so=en &ord) or the e1istence) contents)
substance) urort) or #eaning of the sa#e or an! ar) thereof) or an! infor#ation
therein contained) obtained or secured b! an! erson in violation of the receding
sections of this /ct shall not be ad#issible in evidence in an! 4udicial) "uasi04udicial)
legislative or ad#inistrative hearing or investigation.Q
8 $ + a g e
Ruben Gerald V. Ricasata III
3B
Evidence Digests|Bonifacio
200
9
Clearl!) resondents trial court and Court of /eals failed consider the afore0
"uoted rovisions of the la& in ad#itting in the casette taes in "uestion. /bsent a
clear sho& that both arties to the telehone conversations allo&ed recording of the
sa#e) the inad#issibilit! of the sub4ect taes is #andator! under Re. /ct 3o.
9'AA.
6A $ + a g e
Ruben Gerald V. Ricasata III
3B
Evidence Digests|Bonifacio
200
9
Ramire- v. Court of Appeals
Doctrine The ter# Frivate co##unicationI in R/ 9'AA includes rivate
conversations.
!acts
Ra#ire% and Garcia had a confrontation in the latter?s o.ce.
In the confrontation) Garcia allegedl! ve1ed) insulted and hu#iliated Ra#ire%
in a hostile and furious #anner) and in a #anner o;ensive to the erson of
Ra#ire%.
$ean&hile) Ra#ire% intentionall! used a tae recorder to record all &hat
Garica said.
Garcia then @led a cri#inal case for violation of R/ 9'AA against Ra#ire%.
"ssues
Ra#ire% contends that &hat &as recorded &as a rivate conversation and not a
rivate co##unication. Therefore) R/ 9'AA is not alicable. Is his contention
correct2
#eld
Kirst legislative intent is deter#ined rinciall! fro# the language of a statute.
(here the language of a statute is clear and una#biguous) the la& is alied
according to its e1ress ter#s) and interretation &ould be resorted to onl! &here a
literal interretation &ould be either i#ossible66 or absurb or &ould lead to an
in4ustice. 6'
5ection I of R./) 9'AA entitled) Q/n /ct to +rohibit and +enali%e (ire Taing and
Cther Related Violations of +rivate Co##unication and Cther +uroses)Q rovides O
5ection 6. It shall be unla&full for an! erson) not being authori%ed b! all the arties
to an! rivate co##unication or so=en &ord) to ta an! &ire or cable) or b! using
an! other device or arrange#ent) to secretl! overhear) intercet) or record such
co##unication or so=en &ord b! using a device co##onl! =no&n as a dictahone
or dictagrah or detectahone or &al=ie0tal=ie or tae recorder) or ho&ever
other&ise described.
66 $ + a g e
Ruben Gerald V. Ricasata III
3B
Evidence Digests|Bonifacio
200
9
The aforestated rovision clearl! and une"uivocall! #a=es it illegal for an! erson)
not authori%ed b! all the arties to an! rivate co##unication to secretl! record
such co##unication b! #eans of a tae recorder. The la& #a=es no distinction as
to &hether the art! sought to be enali%ed b! the statute ought to be a art! other
than or di;erent fro# those involved in the rivate co##unication. The statute:s
intent to enali%e all ersons unauthori%ed to #a=e such recording is underscored
b! the use of the "uali@er Qan!.Q Conse"uentl!) as resondent Court of /eals
correctl! concluded) Qeven a ,erson- riv! to a co##unication &ho records his
rivate conversation &ith another &ithout the =no&ledge of the latter ,&ill- "ualif!
as a violatorQ 63 under this rovision of R./. 9'AA.
The una#biguit! of the e1ress &ords of the rovision) ta=en together &ith the
above0"uoted deliberations fro# the Congressional Record) therefore lainl!
suorts the vie& held b! the resondent court that the rovision see=s to enali%e
even those riv! to the rivate co##unications. (here the la& #a=es no
distinctions) one does not distinguish.
5econd) the nature of the conversation is i##aterial to a violation of the statute.
The substance of the sa#e need not be seci@call! alleged in the infor#ation. (hat
R./. 9'AA enali%es are the acts of secretl! overhearing) interceting or recording
rivate co##unications b! #eans of the devices enu#erated therein. The #ere
allegation that an individual #ade a secret recording of a rivate co##unication b!
#eans of a tae recorder &ould su.ce to constitute an o;ense under 5ection I of
R./. 9'AA. /s the 5olicitor General ointed out in his CC$$E3T before the
resondent courtO Q3o&here ,in the said la&- is it re"uired that before one can be
regarded as a violator) the nature of the conversation) as &ell as its co##unication
to a third erson should be rofessed.Q
Kinall!) etitioner:s contention that the hrase Qrivate co##unicationQ in 5ection I
of R. /. 9'AA does not include rivate conversationsQ narro&s the ordinar! #eaning
of the &ord Qco##unicationQ to a oint of absurdit!. The &ord co##unicate co#es
fro# the latin &ord co##unicare) #eaning Qto share or to I#art.Q In its ordinar!
signi@cation) co##unication connotes the act of sharing or i#arting) as in a
conversation)6E or signi@es the Qrocess b! &hich #eanings or thoughts are shared
bet&een individuals through a co##on s!ste# of s!#bols ,as language signs or
gestures-.Q67 These de@nitions are broad enough to include verbal or non0verbal)
&ritten or e1ressive co##unications of Q#eanings or thoughtsQ &hich are li=el! to
include the e#otionall!0charged e1change) on Kebruar! '')68BB) bet&een
etitioner and rivate resondent) in the rivac! of the latter:s o.ce. /n! doubts
about the legislative bod!:s #eaning of the hrase Qrivate co##unicationQ are)
further#ore) ut to rest b! the fact that the ter#s QconversationQ and
co##urucationQ &ere interchangeabl! used b! 5enator TaTada in his E1lanator!
3ote to the bill "uoted belo&O
6' $ + a g e
Ruben Gerald V. Ricasata III
3B
Evidence Digests|Bonifacio
200
9
/t has been said that innocent eole have nothing to fear fro# their conversations
being overheard. But this state#ent ignores the usual nature of conversations as
&ell as the undeniable fact that #ost) if not all. civili%ed eole have so#e asects
of their lives the! do not &ish to e1ose. Kree conversations are often characteri%ed
b! e1aggerations) obscenit!) agreeable falsehoods) and the e1ression of anti0social
desires of vie&s not intended to be ta=en seriousl!. The right to the rivac! of
Co##unication) a#ong others) has e1ressl! been assured b! our Constitution)
3eedless to state here) the fra#ers of our Constitution #ust have recogni%ed the
nature of conversations bet&een individuals and the signi@cance of #an:s siritual
nature. of his feelings and of his intellect. The! #ust have =no&n that art of the
leasures and satisfactions of life are to be found in the unaudited) and free
e1change of co##unication bet&een individuals00000 free fro# ever! 4usti@able
intrusion b! &hatever #eans.Q
63 $ + a g e
Ruben Gerald V. Ricasata III
3B
Evidence Digests|Bonifacio
200
9
Rule 129 ./at 0eed 0ot 1e %roved
City of 2anila v. (arcia
Doctrine The Charter of the Cit! of $anila states that all courts sitting therein are
re"uired to ta=e 4udicial notice of ordinances assed therein.
!acts
The Cit! of $anila is the o&ner of arcels of land in $alate) $anila. 5o#eti#e
bet&een 689E and 689J) the defendants entered uon these re#ises
&ithout the Cit!?s =no&ledge and consent.
The! built houses of second0class #aterials) again &ithout the Cit!?s
=no&ledge and consent) and &ithout building er#its.
In 3ove#ber) 689J) uon discover! of the resence of defendants) the! &ere
given b! $a!or Valeriano Kugoso &ritten er#its labeled Flease contractI to
occu! seci@c areas in the roert! uon conditions set forth therein. The!
&ere charged no#inal rental.
Eifanio de los 5antos Ele#entar! 5chool) &hich &as close) though not
contiguous) to the roert! had a ressing need to e1and.
The Cit! Engineer gave the defendands 3A da!s each to vacate the re#ises
and to re#ove the constructions therein.
This &as follo&ed b! the Cit! Treasurer?s de#and on each defendant for the
a!#ent of the a#ount due b! reason of the occuanc!.
The defendants refused) alleging that the! have ac"uired the legal status of
tenants b! reason of the &ritten er#its issued the#.
"ssue
If the certi@cates sho&ing the need to e1and Eifanio de los 5antos Ele#entar!
school is held inad#issible) &ill this fact hel Garcia in this case2
#eld
3o. The courts in $anila are re"uired to ta=e 4udicial notice of ordinances b! the Cit!
of $anila.
(e are called uon to rule on the forefront "uestion of &hether the trial court
roerl! found that the cit! needs the re#ises for school uroses.
The cit!:s evidence on this oint is E1hibit E) the certi@cation of the Chair#an)
Co##ittee on /roriations of the $unicial Board. That docu#ent recites that
69 $ + a g e
Ruben Gerald V. Ricasata III
3B
Evidence Digests|Bonifacio
200
9
the a#ount of +6AA)AAA.AA) had been set aside in Crdinance 9E77) the 687'06873
$anila Cit! Budget) for the construction of an additional building of the Eifanio de
los 5antos Ele#entar! 5chool. It is indeed correct to sa! that the court belo&) at the
hearing) ruled out the ad#issibilit! of said docu#ent. But then) in the decision
under revie&) the trial 4udge obviousl! revised his vie&s. *e there declared that
there &as need for defendants to vacate the re#ises for school e1ansion> he
cited the ver! docu#ent) E1hibit E) aforesaid.
It is be!ond debate that a court of 4ustice #a! alter its ruling &hile the case is
&ithin its o&er) to #a=e it for#able to la& and 4ustice. 5uch &as done here.
Defendants: re#ed! &as to bring to the attention of the court its contradictor!
stance. 3ot having done so) this Court &ill not reoen the case solel! for this
urose.
/n!&a!) eli#ination of the certi@cation) E1hibit E) as evidence) &ould not ro@t
defendants. Kor) in reversing his stand) the trial 4udge could &ell have ta=en0
because he &as dut! bound to ta=e04udicial notice of Crdinance 9E77. The reason
being that the cit! charter of $anila re"uires all courts sitting therein to ta=e 4udicial
notice of all ordinances assed b! the #unicial board of $anila. /nd) Crdinance
9E77 itself con@r#s the certi@cation aforesaid that an aroriation of +6AA)AAA.AA
&as set aside for the Qconstruction of additional buildingQ of the Eifanio de los
5antos Ele#entar! 5chool.
Kurther#ore) defendants: osition is vulnerable to assault fro# a third direction.
Defendants have absolutel! no right to re#ain in the re#ises. The e1cuse that
the! have er#its fro# the #a!or is at best Ui#s!. The er#its to occu! are
revocable on thirt! da!:s notice. The! have been as=ed to leave> the! refused to
heed. It is in this factual bac=ground that &e sa! that the cit!:s need for the
re#ises is uni#ortant. The cit!:s right to thro& defendants out of the area cannot
be gainsaid. The cit!:s do#inical right to ossession is ara#ount. If error there &as
in the @nding that the cit! needs the land) such error is har#less and &ill not 4ustif!
reversal of the 4udg#ent belo&.
6E $ + a g e
Ruben Gerald V. Ricasata III
3B
Evidence Digests|Bonifacio
200
9
1a'uio v. 3da. De 4ala'at
Doctrine / court #a! ta=e 4udicial cogni%ance of the @nalit! of 4udg#ent rendered
b! the sa#e court in a di;erent case.
!acts
The case started &ith a co#laint for the "uieting of title to real roert!
@led b! Gabriel Baguio.
Teo@la <alagat) et al. @led a #otion to dis#iss on the ground that the cause of
action is barred b! rior 4udg#ent) being identical to a civil case @led b!
Baguio against $elecio $alagat) no& deceased and &hose legal heirs and
successors in interest are the ver! defendants in the instant co#laint.
Baguio alleged that for rior 4udg#ent or res judicata to su.ce as a basis for
dis#issal it #ust be aarent on the fact of the co#laint. There &as nothing
in the co#laint fro# &hich such a conclusion #a! be inferred.
"ssues
In ruling that there is res 4udicata in this case) the court too= 4udicial cogni%ance of
the fact that its 4udg#ent in another case involving the sa#e arties) issues) and
causes of action has beco#e @nal and e1ecutor!. Is the court correct in ta=ing
4udicial cogni%ance2
#eld
Nes. / court #a! ta=e 4udicial cogni%ance of the @nalit! of 4udg#ent rendered b! the
sa#e court in a di;erent case.
It ought to be clear even to aellant that under the circu#stances) the lo&er court
certainl! could ta=e 4udicial notice of the @nalit! of a 4udg#ent in a case that &as
reviousl! ending and thereafter decided b! it. That &as all that &as done b! the
lo&er court in decreeing the dis#issal. Certainl! such an order is not contrar! to
la&. / citation fro# the co##ents of for#er Chief <ustice $oran is relevant. ThusO
QCourts have also ta=en 4udicial notice of revious cases to deter#ine &hether or
not the case ending is a #oot one or &hether or not a revious ruling is alicable
in the case under consideration.Q
There is another e"uall! co#elling consideration. /ellant undoubtedl! had
recourse to a re#ed! &hich under the la& then in force could be availed of. It &ould
have served the cause of 4ustice better) not to #ention the avoidance of needless
e1ense on his art and the ve1ation to &hich aellees &ere sub4ected if he did
reUect a little #ore on the #atter. Then the valuable ti#e of this Tribunal &ould not
have been frittered a&a! on a useless and hoeless aeal. It has ever been the
67 $ + a g e
Ruben Gerald V. Ricasata III
3B
Evidence Digests|Bonifacio
200
9
guiding rincile fro# /lonso v. Villa#or) a 686A decision) that a litigant should not
be allo&ed to &orshi at the altar of technicalit!.
6J $ + a g e
Ruben Gerald V. Ricasata III
3B
Evidence Digests|Bonifacio
200
9
%rieto v. Arroyo
Doctrine /s a general rule) courts are not authori%ed to ta=e 4udicial notice of the
cases ending before the#) or the contents of other cases) even &hen such cases
have been tried or are ending in the sa#e court) and not&ithstanding the fact that
both cases #a! have been tried or are actuall! ending before the sa#e 4udge.
!acts
/rro!o 5r. Kiled a etition for registration of several arcels of land in 689B. /s
a result) CCT no. 38 &as issued in his na#e. That sa#e !ear) +rieto @led a
etition for registration of an ad4oining arcel of land.
(hen /rro!os 5r. died) CCT 38 &as cancelled and a TCT &as issued in the
na#e of his heirs.
Thereafter) the heirs @led a case to correct the technical descritions of the
land covered b! the TCT.
The court granted the said etition.
+rieto then sought to annul the aforesaid decision) ho&ever this &as
dis#issed b! the court on the ground of res 4udicata.
"ssue
+rieto contends that the court should not have dis#issed his @rst case for
annul#ent because no FaroleI evidence need be ta=en to suort it) the #atters
therein alleged being art of the records of the cases) &hich are &ell &ithin the
4udicial notice and cogni%ance of the court. *e also contends that there is no res
4udicata in this case. Is his contention correct2
#eld
3o.
In the @rst lace) as a general rule courts are not authori%ed to ta=e 4udicial notice)
in the ad4udication of cases ending before the#) of the contents of other cases)
even &hen such cases have been tried or are ending in the sa#e court) and
not&ithstanding the fact that both cases #a! have been tried or are actuall!
ending before the sa#e 4udge ,$unicial Council of 5an +edro) Daguna) et al.) vs.
Colegio de 5an <ose) et al.) 7E +hil.) 36B-. 5econdl!) if aellant had reall! &anted
the court to ta=e 4udicial notice of such records he should have resented the roer
re"uest or #anifestation to that e;ect instead of sending) b! counsel) a telegrahic
#otion for ostone#ent of hearing) &hich the court correctl! denied. Kinall!) the
6B $ + a g e
Ruben Gerald V. Ricasata III
3B
Evidence Digests|Bonifacio
200
9
oint raised b! counsel is no& acade#ic) as no aeal &as ta=en fro# the order
dis#issing his @rst etition) and said order had long beco#e @nal &hen the
co#laint in the resent action &as @led.
The contention that the causes of action in the t&o suits are di;erent is untenable.
Both are based on the alleged nullit! of 5ecial +roceedings 3o. 8AA> in both
aellant see=s that the order of correction of the title of aellees be set aside. Cf
no #aterial signi@cance is the fact that in the co#laint in the instant case there is
an e1ress ra!er for reconve!ance of so#e 6EJ s"uare #eters of land) ta=en fro#
aellant as a result of such correction of title. Kor that area &ould necessaril! have
reverted to aellant had his @rst etition rosered) the relief as=ed for b! hi#
being that Qthe Register of Deeds of Ca#arines 5ur be ordered to a#end Certi@cate
of Title 3o. 33' b! incororating therein onl! and solel! the descrition of Dot 3o. ')
+lan +su06A7J3A as aearing in the Decree 3o. E67E and #aintaining
conse"uentl! the descrition li#its and area of the ad4oining land of the herein
etitioner) Dot 3o. 3) +lan +su066JE'') in accordance &ith Decree 3o. '3A6 of Dand
Registration 3o. 6J3.Q The clai# for da#ages as &ell as for other additional and
alternative reliefs in the resent case are not #ateriall! di;erent fro# his ra!er for
Qsuch other re#edies) 4ust and e"uitable in the re#isesQ contained in the for#er
one.
There being identit! of arties) sub4ect #atter and cause of action bet&een the t&o
cases) the order of dis#issal issued in the @rst constitutes a bar to the institution of
the second.
68 $ + a g e
Ruben Gerald V. Ricasata III
3B
Evidence Digests|Bonifacio
200
9
5ao 6ee v. )y*(on-ales
Doctrine To establish a valid foreign la&) its e1istence as a "uestion of fact and
the alleged foreign #arriage b! convincing evidence #ust be roven. In the
absence of such roof) the foreign la& is resu#ed to be the sa#e as +hiliine
Da&.
!acts
5! Miat died and left roerties.
*e &as allegedl! #arried to Nao Mee in China through a custo#ar! Chinese
&edding cere#on! 0 the! had children.
*e also had illegiti#ate children &ith /scuncion Gillego. Gillego?s children
@led a etition for the grant of letters of ad#inistration of 5! Miat?s roerties.
The Court of Kirst Instance of Ri%al declared all children fro# both Gillego and
Nao Mee as natural children of 5! Miat. The court did not recogni%e 5! Miat?s
alleged #arriage to Nao Mee.
"ssue
(hether or not the court should ac=no&ledge the #arriage of 5! Miat and Nao Mee.
#eld
3o) the court should not recogni%e the said #arriage. It &as told that 5! Miat and
Nao Mee #arried in China. /ccording to /rticle 6' of the Civil Code) custo#s #ust be
roven in order for it to be ad#issible as evidence. *o&ever) Nao Mee?s art! failed
to establish such custo#s binding bet&een the relationshi of 5! Miat and Nao Mee.
Therefore) the #arriage of 5! Miat and Nao Mee cannot be recogni%ed for there is no
roof of its e1istence.
In the absence of such roof) the foreign la& is resu#ed to be the sa#e as
+hiliine la&. Therefore) al!ing +hiliine la&) Nao Mee?s #arriage is void
because of non0co#liance the essential and for#al re"uisites of #arriage.
'A $ + a g e
Ruben Gerald V. Ricasata III
3B
Evidence Digests|Bonifacio
200
9
&abuena v. Court of Appeals
Doctrine There are e1cetions to the rule that the court cannot ta=e 4udicial notice
of contents of other cases ending before it.
!acts
In 68J3) an action for recover! of o&nershi of a arcel of residential land in
$a=ato) /=lan) &as @led in the RTC of /=lan b! the estate of /lfredo Tabernilla
against <ose Tabuena. The trial court found that the lot &as sold b! <uan
+eralta) <r. to Tabernilla &hile the! &ere in the Pnited 5tates.
+eralta?s #other conve!ed the land to Tabernilla uon the latter?s return. /t
the sa#e ti#e) she as=ed to be allo&ed to sta! thereon as she had been
living there all her life.
Tabernilla agreed rovided she aid the realt! ta1es on the roert!) &hich
she did. Pon her death) Tabuena) the half0brother of +eralta) too= ossession
of the roert!. *e refused de#ands #ade Tabernilla to surrender the
roert!) clai#ing it as his &on.
The trial court ruled for the estate and ordered Tabuena to vacate the
roert!.
Tabuena rotested that the trial court erred in ta=ing cogni%ance of
docu#ents &hich had never been for#all! sub#itted in evidence and in
considering the roceedings in another case involving the sa#e arties but a
di;erent arcel of land in resolving the o&nershi of the sub4ect lot.
"ssues
(hether or not the trial court erred in ta=ing 4udicial notice of Tabuena?s testi#on!
in Civil Case 3o. 63'J2
#eld
Nes.
The resondent court also held that the trial court co##itted no reversible error in
ta=ing 4udicial notice of Tabuena:s testi#on! in a case it had reviousl! heard &hich
&as closel! connected &ith the case before it. It conceded that as a general rule
Qcourts are not authori%ed to ta=e 4udicial notice) in the ad4udication of cases
ending before the#) of the contents of the records of other cases) even &hen such
cases have been tried or are ending in the sa#e court) and not&ithstanding the
fact that both cases #a! have been heard or are actuall! ending before the sa#e
4udge.Q 3evertheless) it alied the e1cetion thatO
'6 $ + a g e
Ruben Gerald V. Ricasata III
3B
Evidence Digests|Bonifacio
200
9
. . . in the absence of ob4ection) and as a #atter of convenience to all arties) a
court #a! roerl! treat all or an! art of the original record of a case @led in its
archives as read into the record of a case ending before it) &hen) &ith the
=no&ledge of the oosing art!) reference is #ade to it for that urose) b! na#e
and nu#ber or in so#e other #anner b! &hich it is su.cientl! designated> or &hen
the original record of the for#er case or an! art of it) is actuall! &ithdra&n fro#
the archives b! the court:s direction) at the re"uest or &ith the consent of the
arties) and ad#itted as a art of the record of the case then ending.
It is clear) though) that this e1cetion is alicable onl! &hen) Qin the absence of
ob4ection)Q Q&ith the =no&ledge of the oosing art!)Q or Qat the re"uest or &ith
the consent of the arties)Q the case is clearl! referred to or Qthe original or art of
the records of the case are actuall! &ithdra&n fro# the archivesQ and Qad#itted as
art of the record of the case then ending.Q These conditions have not been
established here. Cn the contrar!) the etitioner &as co#letel! una&are that his
testi#on! in Civil Case 3o. 63'J &as being considered b! the trial court in the case
then ending before it. /s the etitioner uts it) the #atter &as never ta=en u at
the trial and &as Qunfairl! srungI uon hi#) leaving hi# no oortunit! to
counteract.
'' $ + a g e
Ruben Gerald V. Ricasata III
3B
Evidence Digests|Bonifacio
200
9
%eople v. (odoy
Doctrine The Court ta=es 4udicial cogni%ance of the fact that in rural areas in the
+hiliines) !oung ladies are strictl! re"uired to act &ith circu#section and
rudence. Great caution is observed so that their reutations shall re#ain
untainted. /n! breath of scandal &hich brings dishonor to their character hu#iliates
their entire fa#ilies.
!acts
Godo! &as charged &ith rae and =idnaing &ith serious illegal detention.
*is defense &as that the! &ere lovers) as evidenced b! the letters &rote b!
the co#lainant to the accused.
"ssue
Can Godo! be convicted of rae2
#eld
3o. The! &ere in fact lovers.
It is basic that for =idnaing to e1ist) there #ust be indubitable roof that the
actual intent of the #alefactor &as to derive the o;ended art! of her libert!. In
the resent charge for that cri#e) such intent has not at all been established b! the
rosecution. +rescinding fro# the fact that the Taha souses desisted fro# ursuing
this charge &hich the! the#selves instituted) several grave and irreconcilable
inconsistencies bedevil the rosecution:s evidence thereon and cast serious doubts
on the guilt of aellant.
The Court ta=es 4udicial cogni%ance of the fact that in rural areas in the +hiliines)
!oung ladies are strictl! re"uired to act &ith circu#section and rudence. Great
caution is observed so that their reutations shall re#ain untainted. /n! breath of
scandal &hich brings dishonor to their character hu#iliates their entire fa#ilies.BA It
could recisel! be that co#lainant:s #other &anted to save face in the co##unit!
&here ever!bod! =no&s ever!bod! else) and in an e;ort to conceal her daughter:s
indiscretion and escae the &agging tongues of their s#all rural co##unit!) she
had to &eave the scenario of this rae dra#a.
'3 $ + a g e
Ruben Gerald V. Ricasata III
3B
Evidence Digests|Bonifacio
200
9
1an7 of t/e %/ilippine "slands v. Court of &a8 Appeals
Doctrine There are e1cetions to the rule that the court cannot ta=e 4udicial notice
of contents of other cases ending before it.
!acts
B+I @led a &ritten clai# for refund in the a#ount of +66')AAA &ith the CIR
alleging that it did not al! the 68B8 refundable a#oun to f+'J8)AAA to its
688A /nnual inco#e Ta1 Return or other ta1 liabilities due to the alleged
business losses it incurred for the sa#e !ear.
"ssue
Is B+I entitled to the clai#ed refund2
#eld
Nes.
+etitioner also calls the attention of this Court) as it had done before the CT/) to a
Decision rendered b! the Ta1 Court in CT/ Case 3o. 9B8J) involving its clai# for
refund for the !ear 688A. In that case) the Ta1 Court held that Qetitioner su;ered a
net loss for the ta1able !ear 688A 1 1 1.Q6B GDecision in CT/ Case 3o. 9B8J) . J>
rollo) . E8.H Resondent) ho&ever) urges this Court not to ta=e 4udicial notice of the
said case.68 GResondents? $e#orandu#) . 806A.H
/s a rule) Qcourts are not authori%ed to ta=e 4udicial notice of the contents of the
records of other cases) even &hen such cases have been tried or are ending in the
sa#e court) and not&ithstanding the fact that both cases #a! have been heard or
are actuall! ending before the sa#e 4udge.
Be that as it #a!) 5ection ') Rule 6'8 rovides that courts #a! ta=e 4udicial notice
of #atters ought to be =no&n to 4udges because of their 4udicial functions. In this
case) the Court notes that a co! of the Decision in CT/ Case 3o. 9B8J &as
attached to the +etition for Revie& @led before this Court. 5igni@cantl!) resondents
do not clai# at all that the said Decision &as fraudulent or none1istent. Indeed)
the! do not even disute the contents of the said Decision) clai#ing #erel! that the
Court cannot ta=e 4udicial notice thereof.
To our #ind) resondents? reasoning underscores the &ea=ness of their case. Kor if
the! had reall! believed that etitioner is not entitled to a ta1 refund) the! could
have easil! roved that it did not su;er an! loss in 688A. Indeed) it is note&orth!
that resondents oted not to assail the fact aearing therein 00 that etitioner
'9 $ + a g e
Ruben Gerald V. Ricasata III
3B
Evidence Digests|Bonifacio
200
9
su;ered a net loss in 688A 0 in the sa#e &a! that it refused to controvert the sa#e
fact established b! etitioner?s other docu#entar! e1hibits.
In an! event) the Decision in CT/ Case 3o. 9B8J is not the sole basis of etitioner?s
case. It is #erel! one #ore bit of infor#ation sho&ing the star= truthO etitioner did
not use its 68B8 refund to a! its ta1es for 688A.
'E $ + a g e
Ruben Gerald V. Ricasata III
3B
Evidence Digests|Bonifacio
200
9
Calamba )teel v. C"R
Doctrine
!acts
+etitioner @led an /#ended Cororate /nnual Inco#e Ta1 Return on <une 9)
6887 declaring a net ta1able inco#e of +8)976)E8J.AA) ta1 credits of
+7)9J6)'97.AA and ta1 due in the a#ount of +3)366)EE8.AA.
+etitioner also reorted "uarterl! a!#ents for the second and third "uarters
of 688E in the a#ounts of +')3'B)J9J.'7 and +6)AB')6AB.AA) resectivel!.
It is the roosition of the GHetitioner that for the !ear 688E) several of its
clients &ithheld ta1es fro# their inco#e a!#ents to GHetitioner and
re#itted the sa#e to the Bureau of Internal Revenue ,BIR- in the su# of
+3)6E8)7BJ.AA. +etitioner further alleged that due to its inco#eSloss ositions
for the three "uarters of 6887) it &as unable to use the e1cess ta1 aid for
and in its behalf b! the &ithholding agents.
Thus) an ad#inistrative clai# &as @led b! the GHetitioner on /ril 6A) 688J
for the refund of +3)6E8)7BJ.AA reresenting e1cess or unused creditable
&ithholding ta1es for the !ear 688E. The instant etition &as subse"uentl!
@led on /ril 6B) 688J.
"ssue
The sole issue sub#itted for GoHur deter#ination is &hether or not GHetitioner is
entitled to the refund of +3)6E8)7BJ.AA reresenting e1cess or overaid inco#e ta1
for the ta1able !ear 688E.
#eld
Fifth) the C/ and CT/ could have ta=en 4udicial notice of the 6887 fnal adjustment
return &hich had been attached in CT/ Case 3o. EJ88. F<udicial notice ta=es the
lace of roof and is of e"ual force.I
/s a general rule) courts are not authori%ed to ta=e 4udicial notice of the contents of
records in other cases tried or ending in the sa#e court) even &hen those cases
&ere heard or are actuall! ending before the sa#e 4udge. *o&ever) this rule
ad#its of e1cetions) as &hen reference to such records is su.cientl! #ade &ithout
ob4ection fro# the oosing artiesO
VF. . . GIHn the absence of ob4ection) and as a #atter of convenience to all arties) a
court #a! roerl! treat all or an! art of the original record of a case @led in its
archives as read into the record of a case ending before it) &hen) &ith the
'7 $ + a g e
Ruben Gerald V. Ricasata III
3B
Evidence Digests|Bonifacio
200
9
=no&ledge of the oosing art!) reference is #ade to it for that urose) b! na#e
and nu#ber or in so#e other #anner b! &hich it is su.cientl! designated> or &hen
the original record of the for#er case or an! art of it) is actuall! &ithdra&n fro#
the archives b! the court:s direction) at the re"uest or &ith the consent of the
arties) and ad#itted as a art of the record of the case then ending.?I
+rior to rendering its Decision on <anuar! 6') 'AAA) the CT/ &as alread! &ell0a&are
of the e1istence of another case ending before it) involving the sa#e sub4ect
#atter) arties and causes of action. Because of the close connection of that case
&ith the #atter in controvers!) the CT/ could have easil! ta=en 4udicial notice of the
contested docu#ent attached in that other case.
Kurther#ore) there &as no ob4ection raised to the inclusion of the said 6887 fnal
adjustment return in etitioner?s Rel! to Co##ent before the C/. Desite clear
reference to that return) a reference #ade &ith the =no&ledge of resondent) the
latter still failed to controvert etitioner?s clai#. The aellate court should have
cast aside strict technicalities and decided the case on the basis of such
uncontested return. Veril!) it had the authorit! to Fta=e 4udicial notice of its records
and of the facts GthatH the record establishes.I
5ection ' of Rule 6'8 rovides that courts F#a! ta=e 4udicial notice of #atters 1 1 1
ought to be =no&n to 4udges because of their 4udicial functions.I If the lo&er courts
reall! believed that etitioner &as not entitled to a tax refund) the! could have
easil! re"uired resondent to ascertain its veracit! and accurac! and to rove that
etitioner did not su;er an! net loss in 6887.
Contrar! to the contention of etitioner) BPI-Family Savings Bank v. C ,on &hich it
rests its entire argu#ents- is not on all fours &ith the facts of this case.
(hile the etitioner in that case also @led a &ritten clai# for a tax refund) and
li=e&ise failed to resent its 688A cororate annual inco#e tax return) it
nonetheless o;ered in evidence its to0ran=ing o.cial?s testi#on! and certi@cation
ertaining to onl! t!o taxa"le years ,68B8 and 688A-. The said return &as attached
onl! to its $otion for Reconsideration before the CT/.
+etitioner in this case o;ered docu#entar! and testi#onial evidence that e1tended
beyond t!o taxa"le years) because the e1cess credits in the @rst ,688E- taxa"le
year had not been used u during the second ,6887- taxa"le year) and because the
clai# for the refund of those credits had been @led during the third ,688J- taxa"le
year. Its fnal adjustment return &as instead attached to its Rel! to Co##ent @led
before the C/.
$oreover) in BPI-Family Savings Bank) etitioner &as able to sho& Fthe undisuted
factO that etitioner had su;ered a net loss in 688A 1 1 1.I In the instant case) there
is no such Fundisuted factI as !et. The #ere ad#ission into the records of
'J $ + a g e
Ruben Gerald V. Ricasata III
3B
Evidence Digests|Bonifacio
200
9
etitioner?s 6887 fnal adjustment return is not a su.cient roof of the truth of the
contents of or entries in that return.
In addition) the BIR in BPI-Family Savings Bank did not controvert the veracit! of the
return or @le an oosition to the $otion and the return. Desite the fact that the
return &as ignored b! both the C/ and the CT/) the latter even declared in another
case ,CT/ Case 3o. 9B8J- that etitioner had su;ered a net loss for taxa"le year
688A. (hen attached to the +etition for Revie& @led before this Court) that
Decision &as not at all clai#ed b! the BIR to be fraudulent or none1istent. The
Bureau #erel! contended that this Court should not ta=e 4udicial notice of the said
Decision.
In this case) ho&ever) the BIR has not been given the chance to challenge the
veracit! of etitioner?s fnal adjustment return. 3either has the CT/ decided an!
other case categoricall! declaring a net loss for etitioner in taxa"le year 6887.
/fter this return &as attached to etitioner?s Rel! to Co##ent before the C/) the
aellate court should have re"uired the @ling of other resonsive leadings fro#
resondent) as &as necessar! and roer for it to rule uon the return.
'B $ + a g e
Ruben Gerald V. Ricasata III
3B
Evidence Digests|Bonifacio
200
9
9ucido v. Calupitan
Doctrine The &hole #odern tendenc! is to treat leadings as state#ents of the
real issues in the cause and hence as ad#issions of the arties) having &eight
according to the circu#stances in each case.
!acts
5o#e chattels and real estate belonging to Deonardo Ducido &ere regularl!
sold at an e1ecution sale on Kebruar! 6A) 68A3) to one Rosales) &ho the ne1t
da! transferred a W interest in the roert! to Xolaivar.
Cn $arch 3A) 68A3) all the arties and Gelasio Caluitan e1ecuted and signed
a ublic docu#ent &herein Rosales and Xolaiver) &ith Ducido?s consent) sold
all their rights and obligations over the roert! to Calutan for the a#ount
of the urchase rice &ith 6Y interest er #onth u to the ti#e of
rede#tion.
Cn the sa#e da!) Ducido and Caluitan e1ecuted a docu#ent &hereb!
Caluitan certi@ed that he had ceded to Ducido all the irrigated lands until
such ti#e as he #a! reurchase said lands fro# Caluitan) as &ell as so#e
of the chattels.
Their agree#ent is to er#it three &hole !ears to elase fro# the date of the
instru#ent before Ducido #a! reurchase the land.
The trial court held that the docu#ent consituted a sale &ith the right to
conventional rede#tion) and that the rede#tion eriod had not e1ired.
It further found that Ducido had rior to the institution of the action o;ered
the rede#tion rice to Caluitan) &ho refused it) and that this o;er &as a
su.cient co#liance &ith /rticle 6E63 of the Civil Code.
Caluitan clai#s that the transaction involved a sale to hi# of the rights of
the e1ecution urchasers to the roert!. Therefore) the rede#tion eriod
should onl! be &ithin one !ear fro# the date of the sale. #o:ever; in /is
ori'inal ans:er; /e e8pressly stated t/at t/e transaction :as one of
sale :it/ t/e ri'/t to repurc/ase.
"ssues
(hether the ans&er of Caluitan can be considered as an ad#ission2
#eld
Nes. Considerable doubt #ight arise as to the correctness of the ruling of the lo&er
court uon the @rst "uestion) if the docu#ent e1ecuted b! the e1ecution urchasers
and the arties to this action stood alone. In that docu#ent it aears that
'8 $ + a g e
Ruben Gerald V. Ricasata III
3B
Evidence Digests|Bonifacio
200
9
Caluitan ac"uired the rights and obligations of the e1ecution urchasers ertaining
to the roert! in "uestion. These rights and obligations are de@ned in the Code of
Civil +rocedure to be the o&nershi of the roert! sold) sub4ect onl! to the right of
rede#tion on the art of the 4udg#ent debtor or a rede#tioner) &ithin one !ear
fro# the date of the sale. ,5ecs. 973097E) Code Civ. +roc.- (ere this the nature of
the transaction bet&een the arties) ho&ever) the intervention of Ducido in the
transfer &ould be &holl! unnecessar!. *ence) the fact that he intervened as an
interested art! is at least so#e indication that the arties intended so#ething
#ore or di;erent b! the docu#ent in "uestion than a si#le assign#ent of the
rights and obligations of the e1ecution urchasers to a third erson.
/n! doubt) ho&ever) as to the character of this transaction is re#oved b! the
agree#ent entered into bet&een Ducido and Caluitan on the sa#e da!. In this
docu#ent it is distinctl! stiulated that the right to redee# the roert! is
reserved to Ducido) to be e1ercised after the e1iration of three !ears. The right to
reurchase #ust necessaril! i#l! a for#er o&nershi of the roert!.
Kurther indication that Caluitan hi#self considered this transaction as a sale &ith
the right to conventional rede#tion is to be found in his original ans&er to the
co#laint. This original ans&er &as introduced in evidence b! the lainti; over the
ob4ection of the defendant. Its ad#ission &as roer) eseciall! in vie& of the fact
that it &as signed b! Caluitan hi#self) &ho &as at the ti#e acting as his o&n
attorne!.
<ones on Evidence ,secs. 'J') 'J3-) after re#ar=ing that the earlier cases &ere not
in har#on! on the oint) sa!sO
Q$an! of the cases holding that leadings &ere inad#issible as ad#issions &ere
based on the theor! that #ost of the allegations &ere #erel! leader:s #atter0
@ction stated b! counsel and sanctioned b! the courts. The &hole #odern tendenc!
is to re4ect this vie& and to treat leadings as state#ents of the real issues in the
cause and hence as ad#issions of the arties) having &eight according to the
circu#stances of each case. But so#e of the authorities still hold that if the
leading is not signed b! the art! there should be so#e roof that he has
authori%ed it.
QCn the sa#e rincile &here a#ended leadings have been @led) allegations in the
original leadings are held ad#issible) but in such case the original leadings can
have no e;ect) unless for#all! o;ered in evidence.Q
In this original ans&er it &as e1ressl! stated that the transaction &as one of sale
&ith the right to reurchase governed b! the rovisions of articles 6EAJ et se". of
the Civil Code.
3A $ + a g e
Ruben Gerald V. Ricasata III
3B
Evidence Digests|Bonifacio
200
9
It further aears fro# the uncontradicted testi#on! of the lainti; that he
furnished Z6'A $e1ican of the a#ount necessar! to redee# the roert! fro# the
e1ecution urchasers. It therefore aears be!ond disute that the rede#tion of
the roert! fro# the e1ecution urchasers &as #ade b! the lainti; hi#self b!
#eans of a loan furnished b! the defendant Caluitan) &ho too= ossesion of the
#a4or ortion of the land as his securit! for its rede#tion. The ruling of the lo&er
court that the transaction bet&een Ducido and Caluitan &as one of urchase and
sale &ith the right to redee# &as therefore correct.
36 $ + a g e
Ruben Gerald V. Ricasata III
3B
Evidence Digests|Bonifacio
200
9
&orres v. Court of Appeals
Doctrine The a#ended co#laint ta=es lace of the original. Therefore) the
ad#issions #ade in the original leading) suerseded b! the a#ended co#laint
&ill be considered e1tra4udicial ad#ission that #ust be alleged and roven in court.
!acts
$argarita Torres &as #arried to Claro 5antillan) and the! had t&o childrenO
Vicente and /ntonina. /ntonina #arried and had si1 children.
/fter the death of her husband) $argarita cohabited &ith Deon /rvisu /rbole
&ithout the bene@t of #arriage) and the! had a child) $acaria Torres.
5ubse"uentl!) /rbole and $argarita &ere #arried) and $acaria lived &ith and
&as reared b! her arents.
Dot EE6 had been leased te#oraril! b! the Govern#ent to $argarita &ho
&as the actual occuant of the lot. Cn Dece#ber 63) 686A) the Director of
Dands issued to $argarita a 5ale Certi@cate over said lot) a!able in 'A
annual install#ents. 'A !ears before his death) /rbole sold and transferred in
a notarial deed his rights and interest to the W ortion of the lot in favor of
$acaria.
Cn <une 7) 68E3) about '' !ears after the death of $argarita and 'A !ears
after the death of /rbole) Vicente 5antillan e1ecuted an /.davit clai#ing
ossession of Dot EE6 and as=ing for the issuance of title in his na#e. /
Transfer Certi@cate of Title &as issued in the na#e of the legal heirs of
$argarita.
5antillan and the children of /ntonina @led a case of forcible entr! against
$acaria) alleging that the latter had entered a ortion of the lot &ithout their
consent) constructed a house thereon and refused to vacate uon de#and.
$acaria clai#ed to be a co0o&ner of the lot) being one of $argarita?s
daughters. 5he instituted an action for artition of the lot) alleging that said
lot &as the con4ugal roert! of $argarita and /rbole) and that she is their
legiti#ated child.
The trial court ruled that the lot &as $argarita?s arahernal roert! and
ad4udicated 'S3 to her heirs b! Claro 5antillan and 6S3 to $acaria. $acaria?s
share &as later increased to 9S7) then reduced b! the Court of /eals to W.
The C/ declared that she is not a legiti#ated child.
"ssues
3' $ + a g e
Ruben Gerald V. Ricasata III
3B
Evidence Digests|Bonifacio
200
9
(hether or not the contention of the etitioner is correct such that the resondent
court has overloo=ed to include in its @ndings of facts the ad#issions #ade b!
Vicente 5antilan and the heirs of /ntonina 5antillan2
#eld
3o. To &arrant revie&) etitioner has su##ari%ed her sub#ission based on t&o
assign#ents of error. The @rst &as e1ressed as follo&sO
/lthough the Court of /eals is correct in declaring that $acaria /. Torres is not the
legiti#ated child of the souses Deon /rbole and $argarita Torres) it has overloo=ed
to include in its @ndings of facts the ad#ission nude b! Vicente 5antillan and the
heirs of /ntonina 5antillan ,herein resondents- that $acaria / Torres and Vicente
5antillan and /ntonina 5antillan are brother and sisters &ith a co##on #other
$argarita Torres and the! are the legal heirs and nearest of relatives of $argarita
Torres) and as a conse"uence thereof) the Court of /eals had dra&n an incorrect
conclusion in ad4udicating the entire share of $argarita Torres in the con4ugal
roert! solel! to Vicente 5antillan and the heirs of /ntonina 5antillan.Q ,Italics
ours-
/s &e understand it etitioner has conceded) &ith &hich &e concur) that) &ithout
ta=ing account of the s&orn state#ent of $arch E) 683A) she cannot be considered
a legiti#ated child of her arents. Continuous ossession of the status of a. natural
child) fact of deliver! b! the #other) etc. &ill not a#ount to auto#atic recognition)
but an action for co#ulsor! recognition is still necessar!) &hich action #a! be
co##enced onl! during the lifeti#e of the utative arents) sub4ect to certain
e1cetions.
The ad#ission adverted to aears in aragrah 3 of rivate resondents: original
co#laint in the E4ect#ent Case readingO
Qthe lainti;s and the defendant $acaria /. Bautista are the legal heirs and nearest
of =ins of $argarita Torres) &ho died in Tan%a) Cavite on Dece#ber 'A) 6836.Q
The state#ent) according to etitioner) is an ad#ission of her legiti#ation and is
controlling in the deter#ination of her articiation in the disuted roert!.
(e are not ersuaded. In the /#ended Co#laint @led b! rivate resondents in
the sa#e E4ect#ent Case) the underlined ortion &as deleted so that the state#ent
si#l! readO
QThat the lainti;s are the legal heirs and nearest of =in of $argarita Torres) &ho
died at Tan%a Cavite) on Dece#ber 'A) 6836Q>
33 $ + a g e
Ruben Gerald V. Ricasata III
3B
Evidence Digests|Bonifacio
200
9
In virtue thereof) the /#ended Co#laint ta=es the lace of the original. The latter
is retarded as abandoned and ceases to erfor# an! further function as a leading)
The original co#laint no longer for#s art of the record.63
If etitioner had desired to utili%e the original co#laint she should have o;ered it
in evidence. *aving been a#ended) the original co#laint lost its character as a
4udicial ad#ission) &hich &ould have re"uired no roof) and beca#e #erel! an
e1tra4udicial ad#ission) the ad#issibilit! of &hich) as evidence) re"uired its for#al
o;er. Contrar! to etitioner:s sub#ission) therefore) there can be no estoel b!
e1tra4udicial ad#ission #ade in the original co#laint) for failure to o;er it in
evidence.69
It should also be noted that in the +artition Case rivate resondents) in their
/ns&er ,ar. 9-) denied the legiti#ac! of etitioner.
39 $ + a g e

Você também pode gostar