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 $ +age
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
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
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
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
(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
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
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
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.
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.
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
/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
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!
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
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
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.
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
. . . 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
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
• +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
=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
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.
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
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.
(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