2/13/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 277 2/13/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 277

Same; Judicial Notice; A court will take judicial

notice of its own acts and records in the same case, of facts
established in prior proceedings in the same case, of the
authenticity of its own records of another case between the
same parties, of the files of related cases in the same court,
and of public records on file in the same court.—Rule 129,
VOL. 277, AUGUST 18, 1997 633 of the Rules of Court provides: “SECTION 1. Judicial
notice, when mandatory.—A court shall take judicial
Republic vs. Court of Appeals
notice, without the introduction of evidence, of the
* existence and territorial extent of states, their political
G.R. No. 119288. August 18, 1997. history, forms of government and symbols of nationality,
the law of nations, the admiralty and maritime courts of the
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by world and their seals, the political constitution and history
THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, petitioner, vs. HON. of the Philippines, the official acts of the legislative,
COURT OF APPEALS and JOSEFA GACOT, executive and judicial departments of the Philippines, the
respondents. laws of nature, the measure of time, and the geographical
divisions:” Mr. Justice Edgardo L. Paras opined: A court
will take judicial notice of its own acts and records in the
Evidence; Rules of procedure and jurisprudence do
same case, of facts established in prior proceedings in the
not sanction the grant of evidentiary value, in ordinary
same
trials, of evidence which is not formally offered.—Let it
initially be said that, indeed, the Court realizes the points
observed by the appellate court over which there should be _______________________
no quarrel. Firstly, that the rules of procedure and
jurisprudence, do not sanction the grant of evidentiary * FIRST DIVISION.
value, in ordinary trials, of evidence which is not formally
offered, and secondly, that adjective law is not to be taken
lightly for, without it, the enforcement of substantive law 634

may not remain assured. The Court must add, nevertheless,

that technical rules of procedure are not ends in themselves
but primarily devised and designed to help in the proper
634 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
and expedient dispensation of justice. In appropriate cases,
therefore, the rules may have to be so construed liberally Republic vs. Court of Appeals
as to meet and advance the cause of substantial justice.

case, of the authenticity of its own records of another case

between the same parties, of the files of related cases in the
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001779b4109cd923efa84003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/16 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001779b4109cd923efa84003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/16
2/13/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 277 2/13/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 277

same court, and of public records on file in the same court. The antecedents are amply summarized in the
appealed decision of the Court of Appeals, viz:
Same; Same; Judicial notice will be taken of the
“The entire lot 5367 is being claimed by Josefa Gacot as
record, pleadings or judgments of a case in another court
per answer she filed on June 7, 1971. It appears from the
between the same parties or involving one of the same
record that the lot is located in Barangay Los Angeles,
parties as well as of the record of another case between
Magsaysay, Palawan but the area was not indicated. It also
different parties in the same court.—In addition judicial
appeared that Ceferino Sabenacio is her co-owner.
notice will be taken of the record, pleadings or judgment of
a case in another court between the same parties or 635
involving one of the same parties, as well as of the record
of another case between different parties in the same court.
Judicial notice will also be taken of court personnel. VOL. 277, AUGUST 18, 1997 635
Republic vs. Court of Appeals
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of
the Court of Appeals.
“This case was set for hearing on August 9, 1990 and the
The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court. petitioner was represented by Assistant Provincial
The Solicitor General for petitioner. Prosecutor Reynaldo Guayco and Rogelio Paglinawan,
Community Environment and Natural Resources Officer
(CENRO) of Puerto Princesa City while the claimant
RESOLUTION appeared without counsel. In view thereof, the hearing was
reset to August 13, 1990. Before the scheduled hearing on
VITUG, J.: August 13, 1990, the Court received a report from the
Land Registration Authority calling the Court’s attention
The Republic of the Philippines, represented by the of the decision rendered by Judge Lorenzo Garlitos on
Director of Lands, prays in the instant petition for October 20, 1950 declaring this lot as property of the
review on certiorari for the annulment of the Republic of the Philippines. Despite this declaration
decision, dated 22 February 1995, of the Court of however, the petitioner nor the government did not bar the
Appeals affirming the 12th August 1993 judgment of claimant from filing her answer, possessing and occupying
the Regional Trial Court of Palawan (Branch 50- the lot and in fact accepted her tax payments and issuing
Puerto Princesa) which has adjudicated Lot No. 5367 her tax declaration on the same.
in Cadastral Case No. 13, GLRO Cadastral Record “The claimant presented herself as witness as well as
No. 1133, to herein private respondent, now her son, Vicente Dantic, Jr. The witnesses testified that
deceased Josefa Gacot, the claimant in the cadastral Josefa Gacot was married to Vicente Dantic, Sr. in 1940
case. and were in actual possession of the property for more than
30 years, having bought the same from Cipriana Dantic-

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001779b4109cd923efa84003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/16 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001779b4109cd923efa84003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/16

2/13/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 277 2/13/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 277

Llanera as per deed of sale dated April 22, 1955 in Cuyono adjudicated to Josefa Gacot-Dantic, widow and a resident
dialect (Exhibits ‘1 and 1-A). Since she acquired the of Barangay Los Angeles, Magsaysay, Palawan with all
property from Cipriana Llanera, she continued her the improvements thereon, subject to the estate tax as
occupation and introduced improvements thereon as well provided by law.” 2
as declared Lot 5367 for taxation purposes in her name “SO ORDERED.”
(Exhibit 2) and paid the corresponding taxes thereon up to
the present time (Exhibit 3). That claimant is now a widow The Republic, through the Solicitor General,
and has 5 children namely, Hernando Dantic, Antero elevated the case to the Court of Appeals.
Dantic, Felipe Dantic, Fe Dantic and Vicente Dantic, Jr. During the pendency of the appeal, the Office of
“Cipriano Sabenacio, the alleged co-owner of claimant the Solicitor General was able to verify that Lot 5367
Josefa Gacot appeared in Court and manifested that he is was earlier declared to be the property of the
waiving his claim over Lot 5367 in favor of Josefa Gacot Republic in a decision rendered by Judge Lorenzo
who is in actual possession of the property as he is only a Garlitos on 20 October 1950 following an order of
boundary owner. general default. The Solicitor General thus filed a
“After the presentation of claimant and her son, they motion with the appellate court to have the case
offered their exhibits and rested their case. Thereafter, the reopened and remanded to the court a quo to allow
petitioner thru counsel manifested that it is not presenting the Republic of the Philippines to present the
controverting evidence and is submitting the case for decision of Judge Garlitos. In its resolution, dated 26
resolution.”
1
December 1991, the Court of Appeals granted the
motion.
On 05 September 1990, the trial court rendered What transpired thereafter was narrated by the
judgment adjudicating Lot No. 5367 to Josefa Gacot, trial court in its 12th August 1993 decision; viz:
thus—
“This case was set for hearing several times for the
government to present its evidence and for the parties to
_______________________
submit their respective memorandum in support of their
1 Rollo, pp. 4-6. respective stand on the matter. The claimant submitted her
memorandum while the government represented by the
636 Assistant Provincial Prosecutor assigned to this sala has
not presented any witness to support the government’s
636 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED claim, neither has he submitted any memorandum to
support the government’s stand on this matter.
Republic vs. Court of Appeals “With the foregoing development, the Court is of the
opinion that the subsequent application or claim of Josefa
“WHEREFORE, this Court finds the claim of Josefa Gacot Gacot-Dantic on Lot 5367 which became part of the public
Dantic to be in order. Accordingly, Lot 5367 is hereby domain where her occupation thereto having been open to

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001779b4109cd923efa84003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/16 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001779b4109cd923efa84003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/16

2/13/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 277 2/13/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 277

the whole world, public and notorious in the concept of an affirmed in toto the judgment of the trial court. The
owner since 38 years ago was well taken and therefore appellate court ratiocinated:
entitled to the lawful adjudication of Lot 5367 in her name.
Besides, the government represented by the Assistant “In its brief, the Office of the Solicitor General claims that
Provincial Prosecutor and the Community Environment ‘records of the re-hearing show that on October 20, 1950,
and Natural Resources an order was, indeed, issued by Judge Lorenzo C. Garlitos
of the Court of First Instance of Palawan, 7th Judicial
District, declaring that Lot No. 5367 was among lots
______________________
declared as property of the Republic of the Philippines.’ (p.
2 Rollo, p. 34. 3, Appellant’s Brief; p. 19, Rec.) It now invokes Republic
Act No. 931, approved on June 30, 1953 and Republic Act
637 No. 2061, which took effect on June 30, 1958, both laws
setting the time limits for the filing of applications, among
VOL. 277, AUGUST 18, 1997 637 other things, for the reopening of judicial proceedings on
certain lands which were declared public land. Under R.A.
Republic vs. Court of Appeals
2061, the time for filing an application shall not extend
beyond December 31, 1968. Thus, petitionerappellant
Officer (CENRO) for Puerto Princesa City and Cuyo,
argues that since claimant-appellee Josefa Gacot filed her
Palawan have not made any protest nor interposed any
answer only on 07 June 1971, the court a quo did not
objection on the claim of Josefa Gacot during the hearings.
acquire jurisdiction over the instant claim since she did not
Neither was there a manifestation of protest or claim of
file her answer within the period fixed by R.A. No. 2061.
government use coming from the municipal officials of
“This would be true, if the Order dated 20 October
Magsaysay, Palawan despite notice sent to them of the
1950 of Judge Lorenzo Garlitos declaring Lot No. 5367 as
cadastral hearing. And the sad part was that the
property of the Republic of the Philippines, was presented
government had accepted without any protest all the taxes
as evidence in the rehear-
due the property paid by the claimant religiously. This is
not to say that this order has been considered in the
________________________
previous decision of this Court which is hereunder quoted
as follows: 3 Rollo, pp. 36-38.
“x x x x x x x x x
“With this finding of the Court, it is its considered 638
opinion and so holds, that there3 is no reason to disturb its
previous decision aforequoted.”
638 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
An appeal was taken by the Republic from the Republic vs. Court of Appeals
decision of the trial court. In its now assailed
decision of 22 February 1995, the Court of Appeals
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001779b4109cd923efa84003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/16 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001779b4109cd923efa84003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/16
2/13/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 277 2/13/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 277

ing of this case. Unfortunately, the Republic of the government’s stand on this matter.’ (see p. 92, Rollo) [Italics
Philippines failed to offer as its exhibit the said order. Ours]
There is no basis for the appellant, therefore, to invoke
R.A. 2061, to support its claim that claimant-appellee “It is the rule that ‘The court shall consider no evidence
Josefa Gacot filed her answer beyond the period fixed by which has not been formally offered.’ (Rule 132, Sec. 34)
said law and therefore the court a quo did not acquire It is true that the Order of 20 October 1950 has been
jurisdiction over the case. appended to the records of this case (see p. 19, Rec.). But
it is misleading on the part of the Solicitor General to state
“Precisely, the purpose of the rehearing was to enable the that ‘Records of the rehearing show that on October 20,
Republic of the Philippines, thru the Office of the Solicitor 1950, an order was, indeed, issued by Judge Lorenzo C.
General, to present in evidence the said order. The Garlitos x x x.’ For, during the rehearing, as reflected in
Solicitor General, in its Motion dated 21 May 1991, prayed the appealed decision, the government did not present any
that with regards to Lot No. 5367 ‘the proceedings therein evidence nor any memorandum despite having been
be ordered reopened and the same be remanded to the ordered by the court a quo.
court a quo to enable the Republic of the Philippines to
639
present the judgment dated October 20, 1950 of Judge
Lorenzo Garlitos declaring Lot No. 5367 as government
property.’ (pp. 30-31, Rollo) [Italics Ours] VOL. 277, AUGUST 18, 1997 639
“This Court granted the motion and ordered the records
Republic vs. Court of Appeals
of the case remanded to the court a quo for further
proceedings ‘to enable the government to present in
evidence the judgment dated October 20, 1950, declaring “Neither can We take judicial notice of the Order of Judge
Lot No. 5367 as government property x x x.’ (p. 42, Rollo) Garlitos. As a general rule, courts are not authorized to
[Italics Ours] take judicial knowledge of the contents of the record of
“During the rehearing, however, the Government failed other cases, in the adjudication of cases pending before
to present the said order of Judge Garlitos in evidence. them, even though the trial judge in fact knows or
Thus, the court a quo said in its appealed decision: remembers the contents thereof, or even when said other
cases have been heard or are pending in the same court and
“ ‘This case was set for hearing several times for the government notwithstanding the fact that both cases may have been
to present its evidence and for the parties to submit their heard or are really pending before the same judge.
respective memoranda in support of their respective stand on the (Municipal Council vs. Colegio de San Jose, et al., G.R.
matter. The claimant submitted her memorandum while the No. L-45460; 31 C.J.S. 623-624; cited in p. 25, Evidence,
government represented by the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Second Ed.; R.J. Francisco) Indeed, the Government
has not presented any witness to present the government’s claim missed its opportunity to have the claim of Josefa Gacot,
neither has he submitted any memorandum to support the the herein appellee, declared as a nullity, considering 4that
no evidence was presented by it in opposition thereto.”

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001779b4109cd923efa84003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/16 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001779b4109cd923efa84003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/16

2/13/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 277 2/13/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 277

In the instant petition, the Republic, assigning a sole

error, contends that— In the meantime, Josefa Gacot passed away. The
Solicitor General thereupon moved that the heirs of
“THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS (HAS) Josefa Gacot be impleaded party respondents in
ERRED IN RULING THAT THERE IS NO BASIS FOR substitution for the deceased. The motion was
PETITIONER TO INVOKE R.A. No. 2061 TO SUPPORT granted, and the heirs were directed to comment on
ITS CLAIM THAT JOSEFA GACOT FILED HER the government’s petition.
ANSWER BEYOND THE PERIOD FIXED BY THE To this day, private respondents have not
SAID LAW AND THEREFORE THE TRIAL COURT submitted their comment. The Court, however,
DID NOT ACQUIRE JURISDICTION OVER THE cannot allow the case to remain pending and
CASE, SINCE IT (HAS) FAILED TO OFFER AS ITS unresolved indefinitely. It must now dispense, as it
EXHIBIT THE ORDER, DATED OCTOBER
5
20, 1950 hereby dispenses, with such comment in order not to
OF JUDGE LORENZO GARLITOS.” unduly delay the remand of the case to the trial court
for further proceedings.
The Solicitor General explains that the records of the Let it initially be said that, indeed, the Court
reopened case would show that a certified copy of realizes the points observed by the appellate court
the decision, dated 20 October 1950, of Judge over which there should be no quarrel. Firstly, that
Garlitos has been appended to page 19 thereof. It is 6
the rules of procedure and jurisprudence,
7
do not
not evident, however, why the Assistant Provincial sanction the grant of evidentiary value,
8
in ordinary
Prosecutor and the Community Environment and 9
trials, of evidence which is not formally offered, and
Natural Resources Officer (“CENRO”) for Puerto secondly, that adjective law is not to be taken lightly
Princesa, representing the government during the for, without it, the enforcement of substantive law
rehearing, did not present it. The Solicitor General, may not remain assured. The Court must add,
nevertheless, invokes the rule that the Republic is not nevertheless, that technical rules of procedure are not
estopped by the mistake or error on the part of its ends in themselves but primarily devised and
officials or agents. designed to help in the proper and expedient
dispensation of justice. In appropriate cases,10
__________________ therefore, the rules may have to be so construed
liberally as to meet and advance the cause of
4 Rollo, pp. 30-32.
substantial justice.
5 Rollo, p. 19.
Furthermore, Section 1, Rule 129, of the Rules of
640 Court provides:

___________________
640 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Republic vs. Court of Appeals 6 Rule 132, Section 34.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001779b4109cd923efa84003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/16 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001779b4109cd923efa84003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/16

2/13/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 277 2/13/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 277

7 Veran vs. Court of Appeals, 157 SCRA 438; De los Reyes vs. of the same parties, as well as of the record of another case
IAC, 176 SCRA 394; People vs. Carino, et al., 165 SCRA 664. between different parties in the same 12court. Judicial notice
8 Vda. De Flores vs. WCC, 78 SCRA 17; Republic vs. Court of will also be taken of court personnel.”
Appeals and People vs. Court of Appeals, 116 SCRA 505.
9 Delos Reyes vs. IAC, 176 SCRA 394. The remand of the case would likewise seem to be
10 Sec. 2. Construction.—These rules shall be liberally unavoidable. The area of Lot No. 5367 claimed and
construed in order to promote their object and to assist the parties awarded to the late Josefa Gacot had not been
in obtaining just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every specified in the records. Indeed, on the basis of the
action and proceeding. (Rules of Court) Certification of the Forest Management Services of
the Department of Environment and Natural
641 Resources, Lot No. 5367, per Land Classification
(LC) No. 1246 of 15 January 1936, would appear to
contain an area of 394,043 square meters, 300,000
VOL. 277, AUGUST 18, 1997 641
square meters of which were classified as Alienable
Republic vs. Court of Appeals and Disposable land and 94,043 square meters as
Timberland, which under Proclamation No. 2152,
“SECTION 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory.—A court dated 29 December 1981, had been included to form
shall take judicial notice, without the introduction of part of the Mangrove Swamp Forest 13Reserve, closed
evidence, of the existence and territorial extent of states, for entry, exploitation and settlement.
their political history, forms of government and symbols of
nationality, the law of nations, the admiralty and maritime _________________
courts of the world and their seals, the political
constitution and history of the Philippines, the official acts 11 Rules of Court Annotated, Vol. 4, 1991 Ed., p. 52.
of the legislative, executive and judicial departments of the 12 Citing Graham on Evidence, 1986 ed.
Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure of time, and 13 See Director of Forestry vs. Muñoz, 23 SCRA 1183.
the geographical divisions.”
642
11
Mr. Justice Edgardo L. Paras opined:
642 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
“A court will take judicial notice of its own acts and
records in the same case, of facts established in prior Republic vs. Court of Appeals
proceedings in the same case, of the authenticity of its own
records of another case between the same parties, of the It behooves all concerned that the above matters be
files of related cases in the same court, and of public carefully looked into, albeit with reasonable
records on file in the same court. In addition judicial notice dispatch, for the final resolution of this case.
will be taken of the record, pleadings or judgment of a case
in another court between the same parties or involving one
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001779b4109cd923efa84003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/16 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001779b4109cd923efa84003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/16
2/13/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 277 2/13/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 277

WHEREFORE, the case is REMANDED to the

trial court for further proceedings for it to ascertain © Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
and resolve the conflicting claims of the parties
conformably with the foregoing opinion of the
Court. No costs.
SO ORDERED.

Padilla (Chairman), Bellosillo, Kapunan and

Hermosisima, Jr., J., concur.

Cases remanded to trial court for further

proceedings.

Notes.—The power to take judicial notice is to be

exercised by courts with caution; care must be taken
that the requisite notoriety exists; and every
reasonable doubt or the subject should be promptly
resolved in the negative. (State Prosecutors vs.
Muro, 236 SCRA 505 [1994])
Matters of judicial notice have three material
requisites: (1) the matter must be one of common
and general knowledge; (2) it must be well and
authoritatively settled and not doubtful or uncertain;
and (3) it must be known to be within the limits of
the jurisdiction of the court. (Ibid.)
Judicial notice is limited to facts evidenced by
public records and facts of general notoriety. (Ibid.)

——o0o——

643

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001779b4109cd923efa84003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/16 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001779b4109cd923efa84003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/16