Metro Bank & Trust Company vs.

Miranda
GR No. 187917; 19 Sept 2011
2nd Division: Nachura

Facts:
Spouses Miranda obtained several credit accommodations from Metrobank. To secure such loans, the spouses executed
real estate mortgages. Despite repeated demands, the spouses defaulted in paying the said loan. Metrobank then
caused for the extrajudicial foreclosure and auction of the mortgaged property.

Spouses Miranda then sought for the nullification of the foreclosure proceeding alleging, among others, that the
foreclosure and auction sale was null and void for lack of publication.

Upon review of the records of the proceeding and sale, the Regional Trial Court found no publication of the sheriff’s
notice of sale, and there was no affidavit of publication attached therein. Hence, the Regional Trial Court annulled the
foreclosure proceedings as well as the auction sale. Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the said decision and
order of the Regional Trial Court.

Metrobank questions the authority of the Regional Trial Court and Court of Appeals to take cognizance of the records of
the foreclosure proceedings as basis for annulling the auction sale. It alleged, among others that as required by Section 3
of Rule 129 of the Rules of Court, it did not give its consent to the trial court’s examination of the records of the
foreclosure, and the court did not even set a hearing for the purpose of declaring its intention to take judicial notice of
the said records. Thus, rationalizing, that the trail court and appellate court exceeded to its authority by taking judicial
notice of the records of the proceedings as well as the sale.

Issue:
Whether or not the Regional Trial Court has the authority to take judicial notice of the records of the foreclosure
proceedings and auction sale.

Held: YES! Courts can take judicial notice of the records in question.

As a general rule, courts do not take judicial notice of the evidence presented in other proceedings, even if these have
been tried or are pending in the same court or before the same judge. This rule, however, is not absolute.

In Juaban vs. Espina and “G” Holdings, Inc. vs. National Mines and Allied Workers Union Local (NAMAWU) the Court held
that, in some instances, courts have also taken judicial notice of proceedings in other cases that are closely connected to
the matter in controversy. These cases may be so closely interwoven, or so clearly interdependent, as to invoke a rule of
judicial notice.

In Section 2, Rule 129 provides:

Section 2. Judicial notice, when discretionary. — A court may take judicial notice of matters which are of
public knowledge, or are capable to unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known to judges because
of their judicial functions. (1a)

In conclusion, the Regional Trial Court, therefore, acted well within its authority in taking judicial notice of the records
of the extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings even if Metrobank did not give its consent to the trial court’s examination
of such records.

Digest and report of:

Nono, Benjo Romil

3-SR