Evidence Digests 128 and 129 G (1)

8/20/2019 Evidence Digests 128 and 129 G (1)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evidence-digests-128-and-129-g-1 1/34

Ruben Gerald V. Ricasata III –

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!ocials. 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 insucient to

hold the# accountable. /ccording to the#) the /davit of Eufrocina is not

ad#issible because the aant &as not resented in court for cross0e1a#ination. Is

their contention correct2

#eld

o. 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 adavits of

Eufrocina and Efren Tecson although the aants &ere not resented and sub4ected

to cross0e1a#ination. 5ection 67 of +.D. o. 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!) adavits and counter0adavits #a! be allo&ed and are

ad#issible in evidence.:

6 $ + a g e





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 ocer &ho reared the #edical certi@cate &as not resented in court

to e1lain the sa#e.

"ssue

Turco argued that since the #edico0legal ocer &as not resented) the #edical

certi@cate issued b! the latter cannot be ad#itted as evidence. Is his contention

correct2

#eld

o.

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 thehearsa! rule since entries in ocial 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





9

to the issue and is not e1cluded b! the la& or the la& or the rules ,5ection 3) Rule

6') 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&.n 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 a& Co#endiu#) Vol. II) 688 ed.) . A-.

(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. evertheless) it cannot be said that the rosecution relied

solel! on the #edical certi@cate ,stating that there &as FhH!#en ruture)secondar! to enile insertion as &ell as Ffoul0s#elling discharges. The diagnosis

&as FrHutured h!#en secondar! to rae . 7) RecordH-. In fact) reliance &as

#ade on the testi#on! of the victi# herself &hich) standing alone even &ithout

#edical e1a#ination) is sucient to convict ,eole vs. Toaguen) 378 5CR/ 7A6

688JH-. It is &ell0settled that a #edical e1a#ination is not indisensable in the

rosecution of rae ,+eole vs. acaba) G.R. o. 63A86) ove#ber 6J) 6888>

+eole vs. 5ala%ar) ' 5CR/ 6887H> +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

sucient to convict.

3 $ + a g e





9

A'ustin v. Court of Appeals

Doctrine rdering a erson to undergo D/ 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 . /gustin) for suort and suort

endente lite before the Regional Trial Court ,RTC- of Lue%on Cit!) Branch

6A7.H

• 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 ove#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.

• n <ul! '3) 'AA') Ke and $artin #oved for the issuance of an order directing

all the arties to sub#it the#selves to D/ aternit! testing ursuant to Rule

' 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

o.

5igni@cantl!) &e uheld the constitutionalit! of co#ulsor! D/ testing and the

ad#issibilit! of the results thereof as evidence. In that case) D/ sa#les fro#

se#en recovered fro# a rae victi#?s vagina &ere used to ositivel! identif! the

accused <oel FMa&it Natar as the raist. Natar clai#ed that the co#ulsor!

e1traction of his blood sa#le for D/ testing) as &ell as the testing itself) violated

9 $ + a g e







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 eonardo aconico b! $anuel

$ontebon) $ontebon?s la&!er) /tt!. Tito +intor) called u aconico.

• aconico 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 adavit stating that he heard /tt!.

+intor de#anding an a#ount for the &ithdra&al of the case. 5uch adavit

&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./.

o. 9'AA.

• /tt!. Gaanan &as held guilt! for violation of 5ection 6 of R./. o. 9'AA) the

/nti0(iretaing a&.

"ssues

Is the act of /tt!. Gaanan of listening to a conversation through a telehone

e1tension considered a violation of the /nti0(iretaing a&2

#eld

o. 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

Qi=e&ise) /rticle 63J' of the Civil Code stiulates that ho&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





9

QConse"uentl!) the hrase all liabilities or obligations of the decedent: used in

aragrah ,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 thedecedent. The rule that articulari%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> 66 (

33) cited in Krancisco) Revised Rules of Court ,Evidence-) 68J3 ed.) . 6A066.Q

*ence) the hrase Qdevice or arrange#entQ in 5ection 6 of R/ o. 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 7A) intercetion) has not occurred.Q

In the sa#e case) the Court further ruled that the conduct of the art! &ould di;erin 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





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 enalstatute #ust be construed as not including an e1tension telehone.

$ + a g e





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 orcable) 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&nas a dictahone or dictagrah or detectahone or &al=ie0tal=ie or tae0recorder) orho&ever other&ise described. The inad#issibilit! of such evidence obtained inviolation of said /ct is #andator! under the la&.

!acts

• Rafael rtane% @led &ith the Regional Trial Court a co#laint for annul#entof #arriage &ith da#ages against Teresita 5alcedo0rtane%) on grounds of

lac= of #arriage license andSor s!chological incaacit! of Teresita.• /#ong the evidence orall! for#all! o;ered b! rtane% &ere three cassette

taes of alleged telehone conversations bet&een Teresita and unidenti@edersons.

"ssues

Teresita @led an ob4ectionSco##ent to Rafael?s oral o;er of evidence) assailing thead#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 o. 9'AA entitled Q/n /ct to +rohibit and +enali%e (ire Taing and therRelated Violations of the +rivac! of Co##unication) and for other urosesQe1ressl! #a=es such tae recordings inad#issible in evidence. The relevantrovisions of Re. /ct o. 9'AA are as follo&sO

Q5ection 6. It shall be unla&ful for an! erson) not being authori%ed b! all thearties to an! rivate co##unication or so=en &ord) to ta an! &ire or cable) orb! using an! other device or arrange#ent) to secretl! overhear) intercet) or recordsuch 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) orho&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#ationtherein contained) obtained or secured b! an! erson in violation of the recedingsections 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





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 aclear sho& that both arties to the telehone conversations allo&ed recording of thesa#e) the inad#issibilit! of the sub4ect taes is #andator! under Re. /ct o.9'AA.

6A $ + a g e





9

Ramire- v. Court of Appeals

Doctrine The ter# Frivate co##unication in R/ 9'AA includes rivateconversations.

!acts

• Ra#ire% and Garcia had a confrontation in the latter?s oce.

• 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 &hatGarica 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 aliedaccording to its e1ress ter#s) and interretation &ould be resorted to onl! &here aliteral interretation &ould be either i#ossible66 or absurb or &ould lead to anin4ustice. 6'

5ection I of R./) 9'AA entitled) Q/n /ct to +rohibit and +enali%e (ire Taing andther Related Violations of +rivate Co##unication and ther +uroses)Q rovides O

5ection 6. It shall be unla&full for an! erson) not being authori%ed b! all the artiesto an! rivate co##unication or so=en &ord) to ta an! &ire or cable) or b! usingan! other device or arrange#ent) to secretl! overhear) intercet) or record suchco##unication or so=en &ord b! using a device co##onl! =no&n as a dictahoneor dictagrah or detectahone or &al=ie0tal=ie or tae recorder) or ho&everother&ise described.

66 $ + a g e





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 asto &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 theabove0"uoted deliberations fro# the Congressional Record) therefore lainl!

suorts the vie& held b! the resondent court that the rovision see=s to enali%eeven those riv! to the rivate co##unications. (here the la& #a=es nodistinctions) 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 suce to constitute an o;ense under 5ection I of

R./. 9'AA. /s the 5olicitor General ointed out in his C$$ET before the

resondent courtO Qo&here ,in the said la&- is it re"uired that before one can beregarded 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 Iof R. /. 9'AA does not include rivate conversationsQ narro&s the ordinar! #eaningof the &ord Qco##unicationQ to a oint of absurdit!. The &ord co##unicate co#esfro# 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 aconversation)6 or signi@es the Qrocess b! &hich #eanings or thoughts are sharedbet&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! toinclude the e#otionall!0charged e1change) on Kebruar! '')68) bet&eenetitioner and rivate resondent) in the rivac! of the latter:s oce. /n! doubtsabout 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 andco##urucationQ &ere interchangeabl! used b! 5enator Taada in his E1lanator!ote to the bill "uoted belo&O

6' $ + a g e





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 asectsof 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)

eedless 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





9

Rule 129 – /at eed ot e %roved

City of anila 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 689 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 ove#ber) 689J) uon discover! of the resence of defendants) the! &ere

given b! $a!or Valeriano Kugoso &ritten er#its labeled Flease contract 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

o. 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





9

the a#ount of +6AA)AAA.AA) had been set aside in rdinance 977) 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 thehearing) 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. ot 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 rdinance 977. 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) rdinance

977 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 thatthe! 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&.

6 $ + a g e





9

a'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 suce as a basis fordis#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! thesa#e court in a di;erent case.

It ought to be clear even to aellant that under the circu#stances) the lo&er courtcertainl! could ta=e 4udicial notice of the @nalit! of a 4udg#ent in a case that &asreviousl! ending and thereafter decided b! it. That &as all that &as done b! thelo&er court in decreeing the dis#issal. Certainl! such an order is not contrar! tola&. / citation fro# the co##ents of for#er Chief <ustice $oran is relevant. ThusOQCourts have also ta=en 4udicial notice of revious cases to deter#ine &hether ornot the case ending is a #oot one or &hether or not a revious ruling is alicablein the case under consideration.Q

There is another e"uall! co#elling consideration. /ellant undoubtedl! hadrecourse to a re#ed! &hich under the la& then in force could be availed of. It &ouldhave served the cause of 4ustice better) not to #ention the avoidance of needlesse1ense on his art and the ve1ation to &hich aellees &ere sub4ected if he didreUect a little #ore on the #atter. Then the valuable ti#e of this Tribunal &ould nothave been frittered a&a! on a useless and hoeless aeal. It has ever been the

67 $ + a g e





9

guiding rincile fro# /lonso v. Villa#or) a 686A decision) that a litigant should notbe allo&ed to &orshi at the altar of technicalit!.

6J $ + a g e





9

%rieto v. Arroyo

Doctrine /s a general rule) courts are not authori%ed to ta=e 4udicial notice of thecases ending before the#) or the contents of other cases) even &hen such caseshave been tried or are ending in the sa#e court) and not&ithstanding the fact thatboth 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 689. /sa result) CT no. 38 &as issued in his na#e. That sa#e !ear) +rieto @led aetition for registration of an ad4oining arcel of land.

• (hen /rro!os 5r. died) CT 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 theland covered b! the TCT.

• The court granted the said etition.

• +rieto then sought to annul the aforesaid decision) ho&ever this &asdis#issed b! the court on the ground of res 4udicata.

"ssue

+rieto contends that the court should not have dis#issed his @rst case forannul#ent because no Farole evidence need be ta=en to suort it) the #atterstherein 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

o.

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) andnot&ithstanding the fact that both cases #a! have been tried or are actuall!ending before the sa#e 4udge ,$unicial Council of 5an +edro) aguna) et al.) vs.Colegio de 5an <ose) et al.) 7 +hil.) 36-. 5econdl!) if aellant had reall! &antedthe court to ta=e 4udicial notice of such records he should have resented the roerre"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

6 $ + a g e





9

oint raised b! counsel is no& acade#ic) as no aeal &as ta=en fro# the orderdis#issing his @rst etition) and said order had long beco#e @nal &hen theco#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 o. 8AA> in bothaellant see=s that the order of correction of the title of aellees be set aside. f no #aterial signi@cance is the fact that in the co#laint in the instant case there isan e1ress ra!er for reconve!ance of so#e 6J s"uare #eters of land) ta=en fro#aellant as a result of such correction of title. Kor that area &ould necessaril! havereverted 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@cateof Title o. 33' b! incororating therein onl! and solel! the descrition of ot o. ')

+lan +su06A7J3A as aearing in the Decree o. 67 and #aintainingconse"uentl! the descrition li#its and area of the ad4oining land of the hereinetitioner) ot o. 3) +lan +su066J'') in accordance &ith Decree o. '3A6 of andRegistration o. 6J3.Q The clai# for da#ages as &ell as for other additional andalternative reliefs in the resent case are not #ateriall! di;erent fro# his ra!er forQsuch other re#edies) 4ust and e"uitable in the re#isesQ contained in the for#erone.

There being identit! of arties) sub4ect #atter and cause of action bet&een the t&ocases) the order of dis#issal issued in the @rst constitutes a bar to the institution of the second.

68 $ + a g e





9

5ao 6ee v. )y*(on-ales

Doctrine To establish a valid foreign la&) its e1istence as a "uestion of fact andthe alleged foreign #arriage b! convincing evidence #ust be roven. In theabsence of such roof) the foreign la& is resu#ed to be the sa#e as +hiliinea&.

!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

o) 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 beroven 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





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 o. 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 evertheless) it alied the e1cetion thatO

'6 $ + a g e





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 sucientl! 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 beenestablished here. n the contrar!) the etitioner &as co#letel! una&are that his

testi#on! in Civil Case o. 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! srung uon hi#) leaving hi# no oortunit! to

counteract.

'' $ + a g e





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

o. 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# ursuingthis 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.A 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:sindiscretion 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





9

an7 of t/e %/ilippine "slands v. Court of &a 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 688 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 o. 98J) 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.Q6 Decision in CT/ Case o. 98J) . J>

rollo) . 8.H Resondent) ho&ever) urges this Court not to ta=e 4udicial notice of the

said case.68 Resondents? $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 o. 98J &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





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 o. 98J 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 688 refund to a! its ta1es for 688A.

' $ + a g e





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)8J.AA) ta1 credits of+7)9J6)'97.AA and ta1 due in the a#ount of +3)366)8.AA.

• +etitioner also reorted "uarterl! a!#ents for the second and third "uartersof 688 in the a#ounts of +')3')J9J.'7 and +6)A')6A.AA) resectivel!.

• It is the roosition of the Hetitioner that for the !ear 688) several of itsclients &ithheld ta1es fro# their inco#e a!#ents to Hetitioner and

re#itted the sa#e to the Bureau of Internal Revenue ,BIR- in the su# of+3)68)7J.AA. +etitioner further alleged that due to its inco#eSloss ositionsfor the three "uarters of 6887) it &as unable to use the e1cess ta1 aid forand in its behalf b! the &ithholding agents.

• Thus) an ad#inistrative clai# &as @led b! the Hetitioner on /ril 6A) 688Jfor the refund of +3)68)7J.AA reresenting e1cess or unused creditable&ithholding ta1es for the !ear 688. The instant etition &as subse"uentl!@led on /ril 6) 688J.

"ssue

The sole issue sub#itted for oHur deter#ination is &hether or not Hetitioner isentitled to the refund of +3)68)7J.AA reresenting e1cess or overaid inco#e ta1for the ta1able !ear 688.

#eld

Fifth) the C/ and CT/ could have ta=en 4udicial notice of the 6887 nal adjustmentreturn &hich had been attached in CT/ Case o. J88. F<udicial notice ta=es thelace of roof and is of e"ual force.

/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 rulead#its of e1cetions) as &hen reference to such records is sucientl! #ade &ithoutob4ection fro# the oosing artiesO

F. . . IHn the absence of ob4ection) and as a #atter of convenience to all arties) acourt #a! roerl! treat all or an! art of the original record of a case @led in itsarchives as read into the record of a case ending before it) &hen) &ith the

'7 $ + a g e





9

=no&ledge of the oosing art!) reference is #ade to it for that urose) b! na#eand nu#ber or in so#e other #anner b! &hich it is sucientl! designated> or &henthe 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 thearties) and ad#itted as a art of the record of the case then ending.?

+rior to rendering its Decision on <anuar! 6') 'AAA) the CT/ &as alread! &ell0a&areof 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 thecontested docu#ent attached in that other case.

Kurther#ore) there &as no ob4ection raised to the inclusion of the said 6887 naladjustment 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) thelatter still failed to controvert etitioner?s clai#. The aellate court should havecast aside strict technicalities and decided the case on the basis of suchuncontested return. Veril!) it had the authorit! to Fta=e 4udicial notice of its recordsand of the facts thatH the record establishes.

5ection ' of Rule 6'8 rovides that courts F#a! ta=e 4udicial notice of #atters 1 1 1ought to be =no&n to 4udges because of their 4udicial functions. If the lo&er courtsreall! believed that etitioner &as not entitled to a tax refund) the! could haveeasil! re"uired resondent to ascertain its veracit! and accurac! and to rove thatetitioner did not su;er an! net loss in 6887.

Contrar! to the contention of etitioner) BPI-Family Savings Bank v. C ,on &hich itrests 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) andli=e&ise failed to resent its 688A cororate annual inco#e tax return) itnonetheless o;ered in evidence its to0ran=ing ocial?s testi#on! and certi@cationertaining to onl! t!o taxa"le years ,688 and 688A-. The said return &as attachedonl! to its $otion for Reconsideration before the CT/.

+etitioner in this case o;ered docu#entar! and testi#onial evidence that e1tendedbeyond t!o taxa"le years) because the e1cess credits in the @rst ,688- 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 nal adjustment return &as instead attached to its Rel! to Co##ent @ledbefore the C/.

$oreover) in BPI-Family Savings Bank ) etitioner &as able to sho& Fthe undisutedfactO that etitioner had su;ered a net loss in 688A 1 1 1. In the instant case) thereis no such Fundisuted fact as !et. The #ere ad#ission into the records of

'J $ + a g e





9

etitioner?s 6887 nal adjustment return is not a sucient roof of the truth of thecontents of or entries in that return.

In addition) the BIR in BPI-Family Savings Bank did not controvert the veracit! of thereturn or @le an oosition to the $otion and the return. Desite the fact that thereturn &as ignored b! both the C/ and the CT/) the latter even declared in anothercase ,CT/ Case o. 98J- that etitioner had su;ered a net loss for taxa"le year 688A. (hen attached to the +etition for Revie& @led before this Court) thatDecision &as not at all clai#ed b! the BIR to be fraudulent or none1istent. TheBureau #erel! contended that this Court should not ta=e 4udicial notice of the saidDecision.

In this case) ho&ever) the BIR has not been given the chance to challenge theveracit! of etitioner?s nal adjustment return. either 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/) theaellate 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.

' $ + a g e







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. 973097) Code Civ. +roc.- (ere this the nature of

the transaction bet&een the arties) ho&ever) the intervention of ucido 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 ucido and Caluitan on the sa#e da!. In this

docu#ent it is distinctl! stiulated that the right to redee# the roert! isreserved to ucido) 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 notin 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.

Qn 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 6AJ et se". of

the Civil Code.

3A $ + a g e





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 ucido and Caluitan &as one of urchase and

sale &ith the right to redee# &as therefore correct.

36 $ + a g e





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 eon /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.• ot 6 had been leased te#oraril! b! the Govern#ent to $argarita &ho

&as the actual occuant of the lot. n Dece#ber 63) 686A) the Director of

ands 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.

• n <une 7) 683) about '' !ears after the death of $argarita and 'A !ears

after the death of /rbole) Vicente 5antillan e1ecuted an /davit clai#ing

ossession of ot 6 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?sshare &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





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

o. 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 eon /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 ) 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! beco##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





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.

Date post:	07-Aug-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	heidi-jean-montaos
View:	214 times
Download:	0 times

Evidence Digests 128 and 129 G (1)

Documents