7.
Republic vs CA, 277 SCRA 633, 641 (1997)
”Judicial notice will be taken of the record, pleading
or judgment of a case in another court between the
same parties or 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.”
Facts:
Josefa Gacot claimed a parcel of land, the area of
which is not indicated, in Palawan. Gacot claims that
she has been in actual possession of the property for
more than 30 year and bought the land from Cipriana
Dantic-Llanera by virtue of a deed of sale and
introduced improvement thereon and paid taxes for the
land in her name. It appears that a certain Ceferino
Sabenacio is a co-owner of the land who later waived
his claim in favor of Gacot and admitted that he was
only a boundary owner of the land and it was Gacot
who is in actual possession of it. Prior to the hearing,
the Land Registration Authority intervened, calling the
attention of the court on the decision made by Judge
Lorenzo Garlitos declaring the property as owned by
the Republic. However, it did not bar Gacos from
filing her answer, presenting evidence of her actual
possession of the said property and tax declaration and
payment made in her name. The counsel of the
petitioner did not present evidence and submitted the
case for resolution.
The court rendered a decision in favor of Gacot thus
the Solicitor General elevated the case to the CA and
filed a motion for the court to reopen and remand the
case back to the trial court to allow the Republic to
present the decision of Judge Garlitos which motion
was granted by the court. The hearing was set several
times and Gacot was able to submit her memorandum
while the Republic was unable to submit any evidence
to support the claim of the government in court. For
failure of the government to refute and to present their
evidence contrary to Gacot’s claim, the court decided
not to disturb its former decision.
The Republic assailed the decision of the court
invoking 2061 that set the time limit of filing an
application for the reopening of judicial proceedings
on certain lands declared as public land, a provision
thereof provides that the application for judicial
proceeding should not extend beyond Dec. 31, 1968.
Gacot only filed her claim on June 7, 1971 thus the
court did not acquired jurisdiction on her claim as she
did not file her answer within the period fixed by RA
2061.
Issue: Whether or not the court has acquired
jurisdiction over the case?
Ruling:
The Court held that what the Solicitor General claims
would have been operative if it were able to present
evidence during the rehearing of the case proving the
alleged decision of Judge Garlitos declaring the
property as public land. However they failed to offer
evidence on their claim and the court cannot take
judicial notice of such claim in the absence of any
proof presented before the court. The appellate court
remanded the case back to the trial court to allow the
Republic to present evidence which they failed to do.
It is a settled rule that the court shall not consider
evidence that has not been formally offered before it.
The court cannot take judicial knowledge of the
contents of the record of other cases, in the
adjudication of the cases pending before them even if
the trial judge knows or remember the contents
thereof. While the case is on trial, Josefa Gacot passed
away and her heirs were impleaded to substitute her as
the party to the case. The court held to lax on the
technical rules of procedure in the case and to expedite
the proceeding take a liberal construction on the laws
to meet advance the cause of substantial justice.
Because the lot area awarded to Gacot was not
specified in the records and based on the certification
of the Forest Management Services of the Department
of Environment and Natural Resources, some of the
lots in the area are classified as alienable and
disposable land, while some portion are timber land
that forms part of the Mangrove Swamp Forest
Reserve. The court decided to remand back to the trial
court the case for proper disposition of the conflicting
claims of the parties.