LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES,Petitioner,

vs. YATCO AGRICULTURAL ENTERPRISES,

Respondent
G.R. No.172551
January 15, 2014
Facts:

Ruling:
Yes. The rules allow the courts to take judicial notice of
certain facts. The taking of judicial notice is a matter of
expediency and convenience for it fulfills the purpose
that the evidence is intended to achieve, and in this
sense, it is equivalent to proof.

Yatco (Yatco) Agricultural Enterprises was a registered

owner of a parcel of agricultural land in Calamba,
Laguna. The piece of land was later on placed under
the coverage of CARP. The LBP then valued the
property at P1, 126,132.89 pursuant to EO No. 405.

Generally, courts are not authorized to "take judicial

notice of the contents of the records of other cases
even when said cases have been tried or are pending
in the same court or before the same judge." They
may, however, take judicial notice of a decision or the
facts prevailing in another case sitting in the same
court if:

Yatco did not find the valuation acceptable and thus

elevated the matter to DAR Provincial Agrarian Reform
Adjudicator (PARAD). The PARAD computed the value
of the property at P16, 543,800.00 using the propertys
current market value as shown by the tax declaration
submitted by Yatco. The LBP did not present the basis
for its valuation so the PARAD disregarded its valuation.

(1) the parties present them in evidence, absent any

opposition from the other party; or (2) the court, in its
discretion, resolves to do so. In either case, the courts
must observe the clear boundary provided by Section
3, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court.

Instead of filing a motion for reconsideration on the

PARADs ruling, the petitioner filed with the RTC-SAC a
petition for determination of just compensation.
The RTC-SAC fixed the just compensation of the
property at P200.00 per square meter based on the
valuation of RTC Branch 35 of Calamba City which also
based its valuation on RTC Branch 36 of Calamba City.
The RTC-SAC did not considered LBPs valuation since
the latter failed to comply with Section 17 of CARL.
The LBP then appealed to CA which dismissed the
petitioners appeal on the ground that it did not find
the LBPs assigned errors to be persuasive.
Hence, this appeal.
Issue:
Whether or not the taking of judicial notice of RTC-SAC
of the decisions of RTC Branch 35 and RTC Branch 36 of
Calamba City proper.

We note that Yatco offered in evidence copies of the

decisions in the civil cases, which offer the LBP
opposed. These were duly noted by the court. Even
assuming, however, the RTC-SAC noted Yatcos offer in
evidence and the LBPs opposition to it constitutes
sufficient compliance with the requirement of Section
3, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court, still we find the RTCSACs valuation based on Branch 36s previous ruling
to be legally erroneous. The RTC-SAC still legally
erred in solely relying on Yatcos evidence and did not
point to any specific evidence or cite the values and
amounts it used in arriving at the P200.00 per square
meter valuation.
WHEREFORE, petition is granted. The decision of the
Court of Appeals is Reversed and Set Aside. Agrarian
Case No. SP-064(02) is remanded to Regional Trial
Court of San Pablo City, Branch 30, for its
determination of just compensation.