EVIDENCE III - MANRESA SY 2020 – 2021
FROM THE LECTURES OF ATTY. JESS ZACHAEL ESPEJO
July 8 Part 1 | Acevedo
RULE 129
WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED
RULE 129 COVERS
A. JUDICIAL NOTICE, which can be:
1. Mandatory
2. Discretionary
3. When Hearing is Necessary.
B. JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS
In the case of Mejia-Espinoza v. Carino, the Court discussed
those matters that courts would not require proof anymore.
Mejia-Espinoza v. Carino
GR 193397 January 25, 2017
Ruling: The general rule is that courts must base their factual
findings on such relevant evidence formally offered during trial.
Recognized exceptions to this are matters which courts can take
judicial notice of, judicial admissions, and presumptions created
by law or by the Rules.
WHEN CAN PROOF BE DISPENSED WITH
1. When conclusive presumption applies, no proof is
required (Conclusive Presumption)
Example:
A child below 9 is conclusively presumed to be incapable of
discernment. Thus, if a child below 9 years of age commits a
crime, no proof is required that he did not act with
discernment. He will be exempt from criminal liability.
Try to compare that if the crime was committed by the child
between the ages of 9 and 15. If the child is between 9-15, the
only way that that child can be exempt from criminal liability
at least from the point of view of the Revised Penal Code, the
Pangilinan Law, you need to prove that the child acted
without discernment.
Effects of the presence of a mere disputable presumption
[Note: When you say disputable, it is susceptible to the proof
to the contrary. You can present countervailing evidence to
defeat the presumption]
(1) It merely defers the presentation of proof, in the
meantime.
Ex: The presumption under Article 131 that “an unlawful
act was done with an unlawful intent.” This means that
the prosecution need not prove, in the meantime, that
the accused committed an act with criminal intent
ACEVEDO . AMISTAD . BAHALLA . CAMPANER . DU . ESCRITOR . ESTROSAS . FERNANDEZ . JAMERO . MACACUA . MAGLINTE . UGDANG
FIRST
EXAM 1
because criminal intent or mens rea is actually presumed.
However, if the accused proves that the act was done
without intent, the prosecution should now present proof
to rebut what the accused was able to prove in the
meantime.
(2) A disputable presumption shifts the burden of
evidence upon the party against whom the disputable
presumption is applicable.
Example: Under torts and damages:
Article 2185. Unless there is proof to the
contrary, it is presumed that a person driving
a motor vehicle has been negligent if at the
time of the mishap, he was violating any
traffic regulation. (n)
Ex: You should wear a helmet every time you ride a
motor vehicle. If you don’t, that is a violation of any traffic
regulation. If you bump someone, but you were not
negligent, but you were not wearing a motorcycle
helmet, you are going to be presumed negligent unless
you were able to prove that you were not negligent in
the first place.
Effect: The plaintiff need not prove negligence on the
part of the defendant. The burden shifts to the defendant
to prove that he was not negligent.
2. When a fact is admitted by a party in court (Judicial
Admission)
Rule: Confessio facta in judicio omni probatione major est
[Admission made during trial is stronger than all proof].
Therefore, if you have already admitted a matter of fact
whether in your pleading or during trial, that fact can no
longer be disputed anymore. In other words. Proof is already
dispensed with because of the fact that you made a judicial
admission].
Example: During pretrial[under Rule 1], the parties are
allowed to propose and make stipulations of fact. If the
existence of a debt, in a collection case, is admitted and
stipulated upon, the fact is withdraw from contention and it
need not be proved anymore.
3. When a matter falls within the realm of judicial notice
a. What is Judicial Notice
1) Judicial notice is the cognizance [or pagtagad in
Bisaya] of certain facts that judges may properly take
and act on without proof because these facts are
already known to them.
 EVIDENCE III - MANRESA SY 2020 – 2021
FROM THE LECTURES OF ATTY. JESS ZACHAEL ESPEJO
2) Put differently, it is the assumption by a court of a
fact without need of further traditional evidentiary
support. The principle is based on convenience and
expediency in securing and introducing evidence on
matters which are not ordinarily capable of dispute
and are not bona fide disputed [Republic v.
Sandiganbayan G.R. No. 152375 December 16,
2011].
Latin Maxim to remember: Manifesta probatione
non indigent [Manifest things require no proof.]
b. Rationale for judicial notice
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 [Degayo v. Dinglasan GR No. 173148
April 6, 2015].
It would be superfluous, inconvenient, and expensive
both to parties and the court to require proof, in the
ordinary way, of facts which are already known to them
[People v. Rullepa, GR No. 131516, March 5, 2003].
Note: Insistence on not taking judicial notice might lead
to absurd results.
Ex: There is an American plaintiff. He filed a case against
a Filipino.
Would it be okay for the judge to require proof that the
United States of America is actually a country, that it is a
state that exists outside of the Philippines or should the
judge require proof that there is really USA? That is what
is meant by absurd results resulting if for example you
insist on not taking judicial notice on the simple matter
such as the existence and territorial extent of states.
MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE PRIOR TO AMENDMENT
[Under the 1997 Rules of Court]
Section 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory. — A court shall
take judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of the
existence and territorial extent of states, 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 of legislative, executive and judicial
departments of the Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure
of time, and the geographical divisions. (1a)
Under the Amended Rules of Court [A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC]
Section 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory. — A court shall
take judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of the
existence and territorial extent of states, their political history,
forms of government and symbols of nationality, the law of
nations, the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and
ACEVEDO . AMISTAD . BAHALLA . CAMPANER . DU . ESCRITOR . ESTROSAS . FERNANDEZ . JAMERO . MACACUA . MAGLINTE . UGDANG
FIRST
EXAM 2
their seals, the political constitution and history of the
Philippines, the official acts of legislative, executive and judicial
departments of the National Government of the Philippines, the
laws of nature, the measure of time, and the geographical
divisions. (1a)
Actually it is 99% similar, except that there is a change on the
qualification on what legislative, executive and judicial department
does this refer to. The Supreme Court. Notice “National
Government of”.
Importance of Clarifying that it is the legislative, executive and
judicial departments “National Government of” the Philippines
It is the official government of the National government contrasted
with those of Local Governments only which are of mandatory
judicial notice.
Example:
While laws enacted by Congress fall within the purview of
mandatory judicial notice, the same cannot be said, as a general
rule, for ordinance enacted by the Sangguniang Panlungsod of a
city.
July 8 Part 2 | Amistad
Ang gi-clarify lang dire by the amendment is that dapat "National
Government of the Philippines". This rule should be committed
to memory.
For the sake of unity and simplicity of discussion lets focus on
Judicial notice of "laws"
What laws are subject of mandatory judicial notice?
1. The Law of nations
2. Laws as official acts of the legislative, executive and
judicial department of the National Government of the
Philippines
3. Ordinances
4. Laws of nature
(as to the other items under Sec. 1 just read the discussions in
my book.)
LAW OF NATIONS
The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines provides that "the
Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy,
adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as
part of the law of the land, and adheres to the policy peace,
equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with all nations.
(Sec. 2, Article II 1987 Constitution)
We know from our studies in Constitutional Law that that is the
incorporation clause of the 1987 Constitution, whereby generally
accepted principles of international law can be considered as part
of the law of the land. Remember that there are 2 modes by
 EVIDENCE III - MANRESA SY 2020 – 2021
FROM THE LECTURES OF ATTY. JESS ZACHAEL ESPEJO
which international law can become part of the law of the
land, first would be by way of incorporation and the second
mode would be by way of transformation, meaning you have an
international law which you have adopted into a local statute or if
an international law/agreement that requires concurrence by
congress then that would already be judicial notice of an official
act of the legislative department of the Philippines.  HELD:
With respect to international law to become generally accepted
principles it requires 2 elements:  the party invoking it must present a copy thereof and comply
1. Widespread state practice among nations; and
2. Physiological Element: Opinio juris (belief that the
international law is good)
The "law of nations" does not mean the "law of a particular
nation"  whether the same are still effective or have already been repealed
The existence of foreign law per se is not within the realm of
mandatory judicial notice. Kay ngano? wala tay labot. Ang
Philippine Courts walay silay pakialam anang law of a specific
country.
Foreign laws present a QUESTION OF FACT. Thus, as a general rule,
they may not be taken judicial notice of and have to be proved.
They have to be pleaded and proven as any other fact. If your
defense is based on a foreign law then you have to properly state
that in your pleading and proved it as in any other fact.
HOW TO PROVE FOREIGN LAW?
For written foreign law:
We follow the process stated in Sections 24 - 25 of Rule 132. (This
rule would not be discussed now to avoid confusion)
For unwritten foreign law:
We follow Section 48 of Rule 130 or the so-called learned treatises
which is an exception to the rule on hearsay evidence. 
Take note however of the following principles:
 A foreign law may be admitted without proof if it is subject of
a judicial admission. So, if it is admitted by the other party
then no need to prove
 In the absence of proof or admission, foreign law is presumed
to be the same as that in the Philippines. Under the doctrine
of PROCESSUAL PRESUMPTION.
CONDON v. COMELEC
G.R. No. 19874, August 10, 2012
FACTS:
Maja was the winning vice-mayoralty candidate of Caba, La
Union. A petition for quo warranto was filed against her on the
ground that she is a dual citizen, who under R.A. No. 9225, must
execute a sworn renunciation of her Australian citizenship.
Maja answered that, when she executed a declaration of
renunciation of Australian citizenship in Australia, she is deemed
ACEVEDO . AMISTAD . BAHALLA . CAMPANER . DU . ESCRITOR . ESTROSAS . FERNANDEZ . JAMERO . MACACUA . MAGLINTE . UGDANG
FIRST
EXAM 3
to have lost her foreign citizenship. She wanted the Court to
take judicial notice of the laws of Australia regarding loss of
citizenship. She also contended that the mere act of running for
public office is a clear abandonment of her foreign citizenship,
citing Valles vs. COMELEC.
Foreign laws are NOT a matter of judicial notice. Like any other
fact, they must be alleged and proven. To prove a foreign law,
with Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of
Court.
LAWS AS OFFICIAL ACTS OF THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
All judges are presumed to know ALL statutes and their status -
or amended
  
LEGISLATIVE ACTS OTHER THAN LAW
 In Chavez vs. PEA, a senate investigation report is deemed
covered by mandatory judicial notice.
 Congressional debates and other records that predicated the
passage of the law are matters considered to be official acts of
Congress and are therefore within the realm of mandatory
judicial notice.
Judges are supposed to take judicial notice of that also, so it
helps that they watch those congressional hearings. 
OFFICIAL ACTS OF THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AS LAW
Executive orders and presidential decrees have the full force of law
when they take authority from a legislative power directly granted
to the Executive by the Constitution, or are made pursuant to a
valid delegation of power to the President.
Example,the Family Code of the Philippines.
The 1973 Constitution and the 1986 Provisional
Constitution gave the President legislative powers. EO 09
was issued by President Aquino in 1987 after the present
constitution was ratified. Under Article XVIII, Section 6,
the incumbent President shall continue to exercise
legislative powers until the first Congress is convened. 
Presently, the President does not have anymore such
delegated legislative power by default, it was only under
the 1986 Provisional Constitution and the transitory
provision of the 1987 Constitution.
July 8 Part 3 | Bahalla
Under the 1973 Constitution, the President, as prime
minister, had legislative powers. During those times, the
National Assembly, where laws are supposed to be made,
became a mere rubber stamp of President Marcos. So,
when President Marcos declares this and declares that,
 EVIDENCE III - MANRESA SY 2020 – 2021
FROM THE LECTURES OF ATTY. JESS ZACHAEL ESPEJO
the Assembly will simply give it an imprimatur and pass it
on as their own law. But during that time, I would
suppose that President Marcos simply had complete
control of the government- Executive, Legislative, and, to
a certain extent, Judiciary. That’s absolute power. And
remember, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
OFFICIAL ACTS OF THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
Pasei vs. Torres tells you about dichotomy. Kung dili bitaw siya
result of a delegated power, di na siya gina-take judicial notice. So,
to form part of the law of the land, the decree, order or LOI must
be issued by the President in the exercise of his extraordinary
power of legislation as contemplated in Section 6 of the 1976
Amendments to the 1973 Constitution. So, dili tanan. Okay? Kadto
lang result of a valid delegation of power.
In the case of Sañado vs. CA, the action of an administrative
agency in granting or denying, or in suspending, or revoking a
license, permit, franchise or certificate of public convenience is
administrative or quasi-judicial. Decisions of the Office of the
President are official acts of and are exercises of quasi-judicial
powers of the executive department. They, thus, squarely fall under
matters relative to the executive department which courts are
mandatorily tasked to take judicial notice of under Section 1, Rule
129 of the Rules of Court. Judicial notice must be taken of the
organization of the Executive Department, its principal officers,
elected or appointed, such as the President, his powers and duties.
Now, let’s go to that phrase “Certificate of public Convenience.”
A certificate of public convenience allows you to operate a
franchise.
As to ABS-CBN, when their franchise was not renewed, they were
issued Cease and Desist Order by the National Telecommunication
Commission. And according to NTC, despite the fact that there are
plenty of precedents to the contrary that a tv station or radio
station cannot continue operating if their license has expired and it
cannot give it provisional authority to continue broadcasting.
Definitely, if that is a decision, whether in administrative of quasi-
judicial function of the NTC, diba ang dapat nga administrative
remedy diha is an Appeal to the Office of the President. But ABS-
CBN really never did that. Why? Because they are scared of
President Duterte.
Let’s go to the case of Republic vs. Southside Homeowners
Association, Inc.
What happened here? There’s this military reservation that was
used to house military officers together with their families. And
throughout the passage of time, they made a subdivision there.
They were treating it already as private property. They even made a
homeowners’ association, SHAI, not knowing that they cannot have
it titled because it is actually part of a military reservation. And, in
resolving this case, the Court took judicial notice of Proclamation
423 which actually made the land, where they were living in, a part
ACEVEDO . AMISTAD . BAHALLA . CAMPANER . DU . ESCRITOR . ESTROSAS . FERNANDEZ . JAMERO . MACACUA . MAGLINTE . UGDANG
FIRST
EXAM 4
of military reservation. Nuclear epic fail sila on their contention that
it can be considered as property of public dominion.
Remember in Property, there is Property of the public domain or
public dominion and you also have Property of private ownership.
Remember that Property of Private ownership actually includes
Patrimonial Property of the State. Patrimonial Property is reserved
by the state for some commercial purposes. But that’s considered
to be private property. And what would be the implication if you
call it private property? It can be subject to Expropriation. Private
property shall not be taken except for public use and payment of
just compensation. Just a review.
Take note, however, of the case of Asian Terminal vs. Malayan
Insurance Corp.
So, what happened here? In a case for damages, Asian Terminals
was adjudged liable by the RTC in the amount of P643,600.25 for
losses due to the mishandling of cargo. But Asian Terminals says
that di man dapat ingana kadako amoang liability. Why? because
under its management contract which was entered into between
Asian Terminal and Philippine Ports Authority under the
Department of Transportation and Communiaction (DOTC), its
liability for losses due to mishandling of cargo is only P5,000 per
package. So, let’s assume that there were 3 packages. And then,
they mishandled it and the cargo was lost. And it’s worth 600,000
plus. But under their contract, since there are only 3 packages,
dapat 15,000 lang ang bayaran. Murag ingana ang contention.
Asian Terminals urges the court to take judicial notice of the
management contract as an official act of an executive department
as the PPA being under the DOTC.
According to the Supreme Court, the Management Contract
entered into by Asian Terminals and PPA is NOT among the
matters which the Court can take judicial notice of. It cannot be
considered an official act of the executive department. And
obviously, the PPA was only performing a proprietary function
when it entered into a Management Contract with Asian Terminals.
As such, judicial notice cannot be applied.
With respect to the functions of the executive department of the
national government of the Philippines, you have to draw a
distinction:
 If it is a governmental function that is being performed by
the government through any of its instrumentalities- courts
would take judicial notice on that.
 If it is only performing a proprietary function- the court will
NOT take judicial notice on that.
So, that’s a very short principle that you can easily remember.
POWER OF EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY
Now, let’s go to the Power of Executive Clemency.
 EVIDENCE
FROM THE LECTURES OF ATTY. JESS ZACHAEL ESPEJO
It has several forms like Pardon, Amnesty, Commutation of
Sentence, and so on and so forth.
Q: Are all the exercises by the President of his power of
executive clemency subject to mandatory judicial notice?
A: No.
To answer this, we have the case of People vs. Casido (March 7,
1997). Pardon is granted by the Chief Executive and as such it is a
private act which must be pleaded and proved by the person
pardoned because courts take no judicial notice thereof. That’s
with respect to Pardon only. But when you talk about amnesty by
the proclamation of the Chief Executive with the concurrence of
Congress, that is a public act of which the court should take judicial
notice.
Remember the event regarding Trillanes? Syempre, he was a very
vocal opponent of President Duterte kuno. At one time, the
Department of Justice is saying that “we have no proof that he has
actually been amnestied.” But later on in one case, we will learn
that the Supreme Court actually took judicial notice of the fact that
Trillanes and company have already been given Amnesty.
1. Pardon- no judicial notice
2. Amnesty- should be taken judicial notice of. (being a public
act)
OFFICIAL ACTS OF THE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Now, official acts of Judicial Department. The best example for that
are the Rules of Court, other Supreme Court issuances, as well
as the cases decided by the Supreme Court. Courts should take
judicial notice of Supreme Court decisions but not blindly because
whether or not to apply a ruling to a controversy is still subject to
the judicial determination. Remember, cases decided by the
Supreme Court, the doctrine might be applicable but whether that
doctrine is completely in all-fours of the issue in the case, dapat
kinahanglan pa ug factual determination.
Art 8, NCC – Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws
or the Constitution shall form a part of the legal system of the
Philippines.
So, based on Article 8, they have the force and effect of laws.
DECISIONS OF LOWER COURTS
What about kanang gi-decide sa RTC? Can MTC take judicial
notice? Also, can RTC take judicial notice of cases pending on its
own sala for a different case?
According to jurisprudence, Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, courts
are not authorized to take judicial notice of the contents of the
records of other cases, even when such cases have been tried or
are pending in the same court, and notwithstanding that both
cases may have been tried or are actually pending before the same
judge. This rule though admits of exceptions.
ACEVEDO . AMISTAD . BAHALLA . CAMPANER . DU . ESCRITOR . ESTROSAS . FERNANDEZ . JAMERO . MACACUA . MAGLINTE . UGDANG
III - MANRESA SY 2020 – 2021
FIRST
EXAM 5
So, let’s go to these exceptions or the so-called instances of
permissible judicial notice of records.
July 8 Part 4 | Campaner
EXCEPTIONS (Permissible judicial notice of records)
 As a matter of convenience to all the parties, a court may
properly treat all or any part of the original record of a case
filed in its archives as read into the record of a case pending
before it, when, with the knowledge of, and absent an
objection from, the adverse party, reference is made to it for
that purpose, by name and number or in some other manner
by which it is sufficiently designated; or when the original
record of the former case or any part of it, is actually
withdrawn from the archives at the court’s discretion, at the
request or with the consent of the parties, and admitted as a
part of the record of the case then pending.
 Courts must also take judicial notice of the records of another
case or cases, where sufficient basis exists in the records of the
case before it, warranting the dismissal of the latter case.
In other words, to shorten everything, pwede as a matter of
convenience to all parties, provided that the act of taking judicial
notice of the records of the case is absent any objection coming
from the adverse parties.
In my legal career, I have a lot of cases which are interconnected.
Meaning, one case may be an offshoot of another case which is
filed before the same court and tried by the same judge.
Sometimes, it gets confusing because the parties are the same, and
the causes of action of the subsequent cases are mere offshoots of
the main case. Usahay malimtan nimo na just presented the
evidence in the main case but not in the other case. Although I
never really had the occasion to ask the court to take judicial
notice of the records of the case that is pending before it together
with the main case, atleast we know that there is that exception.
That it can be considered as read and part of the record of the case
pending before the court.
REGULUS DEV’T vs. DELA CRUZ
G.R. No. 198172, January 25, 2016
This court takes judicial notice that the validity of the RTC
Orders has been upheld in a separate petition before this court,
under GR SP NO. 171429 entitled Antonio Dela Cruz v Regulus
Development, Inc.
ORDINANCES
 While courts are required to take judicial notice of the laws
enacted by Congress, the rule with respect to local ordinances
is different.
 Ordinances are not included in the enumeration of matters
covered by mandatory judicial notice under Section 1, Rule
129 of the Rules of Court. (SJS v Atienza, GR No. 156052,
February 13, 2008).
 EVIDENCE III - MANRESA SY 2020 – 2021
FROM THE LECTURES OF ATTY. JESS ZACHAEL ESPEJO
 Also take note of the amendment in Section 1 Rule 129 –
“Legislative act of the National Government of the
Philippines”. So only laws enacted by Congress are subject of
mandatory judicial notice.
 The rule with respect to local ordinances or laws enacted by
the Sangguians of the different cities and municipalities,
they’re not included in the enumeration of matters covered by
mandatory judicial notice. However, there is a lot of doctrines
that exist which actually allow judicial notice of ordinance.
What are these doctrines? For the sake of simplicity, these are
the Rules on Judicial Notice of Ordinances.
 MTC – required to take judicial notice of ordinances of the
municipality or city wherein they sit.
 RTC – must take judicial notice only:
o When required to do so by statute (example: charter
of a city, just like SJS v Atienza)
o In a case of appeal before them wherein the inferior
court took judicial notice of an ordinance involved in
said case;
Meaning, the MTC took judicial notice of the
ordinance, the RTC cannot require the parties to
present proof of the ordinance on appeal
(remember the rule in Civil Procedure that when the
RTC takes a case on appeal, or determines a case
under its appellate jurisdiction, it should not
conduct a trial de novo).
o When capable of unquestionable demonstration
Meaning, of public knowledge gyud sya, nationally.
The perfect example would be the anti-smoking
ordinance of davao city. It’s not only in the
Philippines that this is very notorious, but also
internationally.
SJS v Atienza
GR No. 156052, February 13, 2008
Even where there is a statute that requires a court to take
judicial notice of municipal ordinances, a court is not required
to take judicial notice of ordinances that are not before it and to
which it does not have access. The party asking the court to
take judicial notice is obligated to supply the court with the full
text of the rules the party desires it to have notice of. Counsel
should take the initiative in requesting that a trial court take
judicial notice of an ordinance even where a statue requires
courts to take judicial notice of local ordinances.
The intent of a statute requiring a court to take judicial notice of
a local ordinance is to remove any discretion a court might have
in determining whether or not to take notice of an ordinance.
Such a statute does not direct the court to act on its own in
obtaining evidence for the record and a party must make the
ACEVEDO . AMISTAD . BAHALLA . CAMPANER . DU . ESCRITOR . ESTROSAS . FERNANDEZ . JAMERO . MACACUA . MAGLINTE . UGDANG
FIRST
EXAM 6
ordinance available to the court for it to take notice.
Here, the SC said that if you want the court to take judicial notice
of a particular municipal ordinance, then give a copy to the trial
court, so that the trial court can take judicial notice of it.
LAWS OF NATURE
In my book I discuss about how Abraham Lincoln (Vampire Slayer
and Lawyer) used a Farmer's Almanac to prove that there was no
illumination from the moon at the time of the alleged commission
of the crime; here what was applied was the Law of Nature to
which the Court took judicial notice of allowing Lincoln to secure
an acquittal for his client.
People vs. Meneses
GR No. 111742, March 26, 1998
It was established that the crime took place in the wee hours of
the morning, before the crack of dawn, at around three o’clock.
The court can take judicial notice of the “laws of nature,” such as
in the instant case, that at around three in the morning during
the Christmas season, it is still quite dark and that daylight
comes rather late in this time of year. Nowhere in the
description of the crime scene by witness SPO3 Mendoza in his
testimony was it established that there was light or illumination
of any sort by which Christopher could see the attacker. Judicial
notice will overrule testimony.
One of my most favorite cases. Diri ingon sa witness, naay
nagbangga na mga sakyanan. Nadunggan niya nga naay
nagbangga, pagduol niya, didto pa lang niya nakit-an nga
nagbangga ang sakyanan. So, unsa’y mauna ang kilat o ang
dalugdog? Syempre, light travels faster than sound. Pero diri, unsa
ni? Nauna pa ang tingog sa bangga kaysa sa bangga mismo? So,
epic fail kayo.
Gabriel v Court of Appeals
GR No. 128474, October 6, 2004
Gonzales declared that he was on the shoulder of the road,
beside the truck, when the collision took place. From his
vantage point, his view was obstructed by the truck. He claimed
to have first heard the collision. He immediately took five big
steps onto the highway, and then saw the Beetle and the
jeepney colliding. In short, the sound of the collision took place
before the actual collision itself. If true, this would rate as one of
the greatest scientific revelations of all time. But since the courts
are obliged to take judicial notice of the laws of nature, this
court prefers to side with prudence.
Republic and UP vs Rosario
GR No. 186635, January 27, 2016
Rosario filed an action for reconstitution of her alleged title to
certain properties in Diliman. UP opposed on the ground that
the properties actually belong to UP and that ownership over
 EVIDENCE
FROM THE LECTURES OF ATTY. JESS ZACHAEL ESPEJO
the said lots have been settled by law and jurisprudence. For
instance, UP alleged that RA No. 9500 which provides that the
absolute ownership of the national university over those
landholdings, including those covered by original and transfer
certificates of title in the name of the University of the
Philippines and their future derivatives, is hereby confirmed.
July 9 Part 1 | Du
Section 2. Judicial Notice, When Discretionary. — A court
may take judicial notice of matters which are of public
knowledge, or are capable of unquestionable demonstration, or
ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions.
(2)
Let’s first try to distinguish between Section 1 and Section 2:
You can even make a case that if the court does not take judicial
notice of a matter that is covered by Section 1, it would simply
mean that that court is actually neglecting to perform a
ministerial duty. To my mind, when it comes to Section 1, there
will always be the possibility that the judge or the court might be
liable in mandamus. Pwede i-compel because that is a ministerial
duty.
But with respect to Section 2, because of course there is exercise
of discretion and it is not mandatory as is meant by the word
“may”. It is purely within the judgment or the discretion of the
court whether or not to take judicial notice.
It is termed discretionary because it depends on the judgment of
the court. No party can compel another to take judicial notice of a
matter because it is not one of the mandatory objects of judicial
notice in Section 1.
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.
What does “common knowledge” mean?
The concept of "facts of common knowledge" in the context of
judicial notice has been explained as those facts that are "so
commonly known in the community as to make it unprofitable to
require proof, and so certainly known x x x as to make it
indisputable among reasonable men." (Magdalo Para sa
Pagbabago vs. COMELEC)
Take note of the phraseology of the SC there.
“Unprofitable to require proof” - meaning, wala kay makuha
kung kintahay magrequire pa ka ug proof on this matter.
ACEVEDO . AMISTAD . BAHALLA . CAMPANER . DU . ESCRITOR . ESTROSAS . FERNANDEZ . JAMERO . MACACUA . MAGLINTE . UGDANG
III - MANRESA SY 2020 – 2021
FIRST
EXAM 7
Magdalo Para sa Pagbabago vs. COMELEC
G.R. No. 190793, June 19, 2012
FACTS: Petitioner Magdalo sa Pagbabago (MAGDALO) filed its
Petition for Registration with the COMELEC, seeking its registration
and/or accreditation as a regional political party based in the
National Capital Region (NCR) for participation in the 10 May 2010
National and Local Elections.
Remember, if you are a political part, if you are duly registered, you
are accorded certain rights under the Omnibus Election Code.
The COMELEC denied their petition for registration as a political
party. Why? It took judicial notice that (1) Magdalo was responsible
for the Oakwood Mutiny; and (2) that it employed violence and
used unlawful means “to achieve their goals in the process defying
the laws of organized societies.”
We know, that under Election Law, if you are such an organization,
you employ violence and use unlawful means to achieve your
objectives, what will happen? You will be denied registration.
Magdalo posited that the COMELEC cannot take judicial notice of
those facts. Magdalo contended that it was grave abuse of
discretion for the COMELEC to have denied the Petition for
Registration not on the basis of facts or evidence on record, but on
mere speculation and conjectures. Atik2 lang kuno na ang
Madgalo employed violence, etc.
ISSUE:
Was the COMELEC correct in taking judicial notice of those facts?
RULING: YES.
This Court has, in a string of cases, already taken judicial notice of
the factual circumstances surrounding the Oakwood standoff. xxx
That the Oakwood incident was widely known and extensively
covered by the media made it a proper subject of judicial notice.
Thus, the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion
when it treated these facts as public knowledge, and took
cognizance thereof without requiring the introduction and
reception of evidence thereon.
So, it took judicial notice. Why? Because according to the
COMELEC, wala man tay makuha kung magrequire pa ta ug proof
on this matter. Why do we need to require proof when in fact it
was so commonly known to everybody that Magdalo was actually
responsible for the Oakwood Mutiny.
As publicly announced by the leaders of MAGDALO (prominently
Antonio Trillanes) during the siege, their objectives were to express
their dissatisfaction with the administration of former President
Arroyo, and to divulge the alleged corruption in the military and
the supposed sale of arms to enemies of the state. Ultimately, they
wanted the President, her cabinet members, and the top officials of
 EVIDENCE III - MANRESA SY 2020 – 2021
FROM THE LECTURES OF ATTY. JESS ZACHAEL ESPEJO
the AFP and the PNP to resign. To achieve these goals, MAGDALO
opted to seize a hotel occupied by civilians, march in the premises
in full battle gear with ammunitions, and plant explosives in the
building. These brash methods by which MAGDALO opted to
ventilate the grievances of its members and withdraw its support
from the government constituted clear acts of violence.
And practically everyone knows about it. That’s clearly constitutive
of violence as would deny Magdalo registration as a political party.
The SC, at the very least, upheld COMELEC’s taking judicial notice
of Magdalo and its participation in the Oakwood Mutiny.
BUT…
In the same manner that this Court takes cognizance of the facts
surrounding the Oakwood incident, it also takes judicial notice of
the grant of amnesty in favor of the soldiers who figured in this
standoff. xxx
In view of the subsequent amnesty granted in favor of the
members of MAGDALO, the events that transpired during the
Oakwood incident can no longer be interpreted as acts of violence
in the context of the disqualifications from party registration.
SC took judicial notice of two relevant matters in the case:
1. That Magdalo employed violence [Oakwood Mutiny]
2. It also took judicial notice of the grant of amnesty in favor of
the soldiers including their public spokesman Trillanes.
So, there is double judicial notice in this case.
[Discussion about amnesty of Trillanes raised in another case when
DOJ question if Trillanes was in fact given amnesty]
In amnesty, the offense is completely obliterated. There is no more
offense.
As opposed to pardon which is a private act by the President that
needs to be pleaded and proved, amnesty is subject to
mandatory judicial notice as an official act of the executive
branch of the National Government of the Philippines with the
concurrence of the legislative branch.
What did the SC do here? It remanded the case to the RTC for
determination of facts as to whether or not there are really papers
as to whetherr rillanes did or did not apply for amnesty.
In fact in the case of Magadalo, it already took judicial notice of the
amnesty. Trillanes figures prominently in this case. What is the
effect of taking judicial notice? No proof is already required. But
what did the SC do? The decision of the SC was really weird.
State Prosecutors vs. Judge Manuel Muro
A.M. No. RTJ-92-876, September 19, 1994
FACTS: Judge dismissed 11 cases against Mrs. Marcos for violation
of CB Circular 960 or the CB Foreign Exchange Restrictions. The
ACEVEDO . AMISTAD . BAHALLA . CAMPANER . DU . ESCRITOR . ESTROSAS . FERNANDEZ . JAMERO . MACACUA . MAGLINTE . UGDANG
FIRST
EXAM 8
dismissal was based solely on newspaper reports concerning the
announcement of the president of the Philippines of the lifting of
all foreign exchange restrictions as embodied in the circular. Judge
said that the announcement had the effect of repealing CB 960.
In other words, naghoard ug dollars si Imelda Marcos. The judge’s
dismissal was because of newspaper reports saying na ingon daw
ang president lifted na ang restrictions, not a law being enacted.
Meaning, Imelda could no longer be charged. Nagreklamo ang SP
against Judge Muro. Tama ba ang pagtake niya ug notice aning
newspaper reports?
RULING: No. The mere personal knowledge of the judge is not the
judicial knowledge of the court, and he is not authorized to make
his individual knowledge of a fact, not generally or professionally
known, the basis of his action. Judicial cognizance is taken only of
those matters which are "commonly" known. Jurisprudence
dictates that judicial notice cannot be taken of a statute before it
becomes effective.  The reason is simple. A law which is not yet in
force and hence, still inexistent, cannot be of common knowledge
capable of ready and unquestionable demonstration, which is one
of the requirements before a court can take judicial notice of a fact.
Section 3. Judicial Notice, When Hearing Necessary. During
the pre-trial and the trial, the court, motu proprio or upon
motion, shall hear the parties on the propriety of taking judicial
notice of any matter.
Before judgment or on appeal, the court, motu proprio or upon
motion, may take judicial notice of any matter and shall hear the
parties thereon if such matter is decisive of a material issue in
the case. (3a)
Changes and comments:
1. From “During trial” to “During the pre-trial and the trial”:
 The amendment makes the propriety of taking judicial notice
a discretionary, not a mandatory, object of pre-trial.
o Rule 18 does not mention the propriety of taking
judicial notice as a mandatory object of pre-trial.
 If you examine the new Rule on Pre-trial (still under Rule 18,
Section 1), the taking of judicial notice after hearing is not
included as one of the purposes of pre-trial.
o Naay objects of pre-trial, naa pud kanang ginatawag
nato na purposes of pre-trial.
 However, take note that when judicial notice is taken of a
matter, it dispenses with proof. This coincides with the
purposes of pre-trial such as:
1. The simplification of the issues;
2. The possibility of obtaining stipulations or admissions of
facts and of documents to avoid unnecessary proof;
and
 EVIDENCE
FROM THE LECTURES OF ATTY. JESS ZACHAEL ESPEJO
3. Such other matters as may aid in the prompt disposition
of the action.
Because if a matter is already taken judicial notice of, giving the
parties opportunity to be heard, in the taking of judicial notice, it
avoids unnecessary proof and such other matters as may aid in the
prompt disposition of the action.
July 9 Part 2 | Escritor
If judicial notice is taken of a matter during pre-trial, issues are
simplified, and facts are withdrawn from the necessity of proof
which in turn, leads to a prompt disposition of the action, which of
course, is the object of a pre-trial.
2. From “announce its intention to take judicial notice”, to “hear
the parties on the propriety of taking judicial notice”.
So, what is meant by this change? From “announce” to “hear”?
Take note, judicial notice can be motu proprio or upon the
court’s own initiative, or upon motion. If motu proprio, it
means that the court is mulling, taking judicial notice of a
matter which it believes might be beneficial for purposes of
expediting trial. Para di na kinahanglan i-prove gud. However,
taking notice might prejudice a party. The party’s possession
over the propriety of taking notice must be heard and
therefore, put on record.
So, if upon motion of the party, it means the taking of
judicial notice of a matter might benefit him. Ngano man
daw nimo ipa-take judicial notice if it does not give you a
procedural advantage in the case? Diba? If kintahay the court
will take judicial notice upon your motion, what will be the
effect? You don’t have to prove it, right? So, just the same, the
party heard will be allowed to oppose the motion. The same
reasoning applies to the taking of judicial notice before
judgment or on appeal.
3. From “allow the parties to be heard thereon”, to “shall hear
the parties on the propriety of taking judicial notice”.
Unsa may significance ani? Before I used to really, really hark
on this. Dili gyud ko ganahan aning Section 3 na ni. I think I
made it clear in my book also.
To my mind, Section 3, Judicial Notice when hearing is
necessary, is actually very repugnant to the concept of judicial
notice. Nganon sya repugnant? Because what is the purpose
of a hearing? Under the 1997 Rules? The purpose of a hearing
is to receive the evidence. And diba, judicial notice
supposedly, dispenses with proof? But, with Section 3, prior to
the amendment, what happens is that, before the court takes
judicial notice, you have to prove to the court first that judicial
notice is proper. How do you do that? By presenting evidence.
ACEVEDO . AMISTAD . BAHALLA . CAMPANER . DU . ESCRITOR . ESTROSAS . FERNANDEZ . JAMERO . MACACUA . MAGLINTE . UGDANG
III - MANRESA SY 2020 – 2021
FIRST
EXAM 9
That was Section 3 prior to the changes. To me, repugnant
gyud sya to the concept of judicial notice itself.
But, the use of the phrase, “shall hear”, contemplates a situation
where the taking of judicial notice will only require oral arguments.
Why do I say that? Because of the change as well to Rule 15 on
hearings of motion. Unsay nakabutang sa Section 2?
Section 2. Motions must be in writing. — All motions shall be in
writing except those made in open court or in the course of a
hearing or trial.
A motion made in open court or in the course of a hearing or trial
should immediately be resolved in open court, after the adverse
party is given the opportunity to argue his or her opposition
thereto.
When a motion is based on facts not appearing on record, the
court may hear the matter on affidavits or depositions presented
by the respective parties, but the court may direct that the matter
be heard wholly or partly on oral testimony or depositions. (2a)
Argue lang. Meaning, oral arguments lang sya. Mao na ang buot
pasabot ana. Because again, kintahay dili sya oral arguments lang,
what will happen? Diba mag present pa kag evidence. And right
now, the presentation of evidence will be by way of judicial
affidavit. Don’t tell me mag JA pa ta on the matter of whether or
not the court should take judicial notice of the matter that is
relevant to the litigation. That will be counter-productive to the
concept and purpose of judicial notice which is to dispense with
proof. The SC changed it. Oral arguments na lang ta. Dili
kinahanglan ug presentation of evidence under the old Section 3
and under the old dispensation on motions and hearing on
motions.
Let’s compare and contrast judicial notice with hearing during pre-
trial, and trial, and judicial notice hearing during judgment and on
appeal.
JUDICIAL NOTICE JUDICIAL NOTICE HEARING
WITH HEARING BEFORE JUDGMENT AND ON
DURING TRIAL AND APPEAL
PRE-TRIAL
Can be motu proprio or upon motion
The subject can be any The subject of judicial notice must be
matter. a matter that is decisive of a material
issue in the case.
On appeal, the appellate
court shall not conduct a
trial de novo. And the
whole process of appeal, as
a general rule, is made thru
pleading work. Wala nay
presentation of evidence
 EVIDENCE III - MANRESA SY 2020 – 2021
FROM THE LECTURES OF ATTY. JESS ZACHAEL ESPEJO
diha. What if the appellate
court now, deems it
necessary for the
determination of a material
issue of the case to take
judicial notice na lang?
Because again, it cannot
conduct a trial de novo. It
cannot accept new
evidence as a general rule.
If motu proprio, the If motu proprio, the court may want
court believes that a to take notice of a matter that was
matter might benefit not proved during trial and consider
from the effect judicial it for purposes of judgment.
notice which is
expediency. Meaning, the court,
gikulangan. I cannot rule
accordingly if there’s a
certain matter of fact na
wala gi-present sa mga
parties. And it cannot reset
itself na magbalik ta’g uno.
Magpresentation na pud
ta’g evidence. No.
If upon motion by one If made upon the motion of the party,
of the parties, the party the party feels that he will benefit
feels that he may from the judicial notice of a matter he
benefit from judicial was not able to present during trial.
notice because you feel
like you wouldn’t need Kumbaga, mutake kog
it anymore. judicial notice kay
kinahanglan nako ipahabol
ning butanga nga ni. Last
ditch effort. Mao ni sya ang
purpose kung ikaw ang
magmotion kung before
judgment or on appeal.
Judicial notice is repugnant to the concept of autoptic preference.
What is Autoptic Proference?
Kana bitawng presentation or examination of objects. Autoptic
meaning, pertaining to the eyes. Self-observation. For example,
appearance or physical condition, is admissible to the court as
object evidence, the same being addressed to the senses of the
court under Rule 130, section 1.
In relation to that, can the court take judicial notice of age as
evidence by looking at a person’s appearance? Naa bay instances
under the law where importante ang age? Daghan kaayo. Age
sometimes can be considered as a qualifying circumstance. Age
can be a mitigating or exempting circumstance. Specifically in rape
cases where age can sometimes qualify a simple rape into a
different form of rape.
ACEVEDO . AMISTAD . BAHALLA . CAMPANER . DU . ESCRITOR . ESTROSAS . FERNANDEZ . JAMERO . MACACUA . MAGLINTE . UGDANG
FIRST
EXAM 10
Example:
The accused had sexual intercourse with a woman below
12 years of age with her consent. Rape gihapon sya,
diba? That would be statutory rape. Consent is immaterial
in statutory rape. So, pag file sa case sa accused, nakita
karon sa korte ang rape victim ay clearly below 12 years
of age na sya. Statutory rape gyud ni. You don’t have to
prove her age. Why? Because I’m taking judicial notice
that clearly that kid is below 12 years of age.
Is that allowed? The answer is no. because when the
court observes the appearance of a person to ascertain
his or her age, the court will not be taking judicial notice
of anything. The court is actually taking autoptic
preference. Meaning, it’s examining the evidence which is
the appearance of the person. And such a process takes
upon the very object of judicial notice, which is to do
away with the presentation of evidence.
July 9 Part 3 | Estrosas
In Rule 67 (expropriation), the principle to remember there is that
the fixing of just compensation is actually a judicial function. Fixing
of just compensation in expropriation cases is a judicial
function. It cannot be dictated. There is no law that needs to be
passed that would fix the just compensation of something, to a
certain price or an equivalent in another property. That’s not
allowed in Rule 67. In fact, when there is dispute as to the valuation
of the property, it is mandatory upon the Court to appoint not
more than three commissioners to determine just compensation.
Meaning, there is a need to ascertain facts, but in this case of LBP
v. Wycoco, what did they do?
LAND BANK vs. FELICIANO F. WYCOCO
G.R. Nos. 140160 & 146733, January 13, 2004
In determining just compensation of agricultural lands, the
Courts cannot simply take judicial notice prevailing market
value of agricultural lands. Instead, it should ask the parties to
present evidence under Rule 129, Section 3. The mere personal
knowledge of the judge is not the judicial knowledge of the
court, and he is not authorized to make his individual
knowledge of a fact, not generally or professionally known, the
basis of his action.
It took judicial notice of the prevailing market value of the
property. According to the Supreme Court, that is not allowed.
Instead, what the court should have done was to ask the party to
present evidence under Rule 129, Section 3.
Going back to what I was telling you a while ago, why are you
going to present evidence if your purpose is to take judicial
 EVIDENCE III - MANRESA SY 2020 – 2021
FROM THE LECTURES OF ATTY. JESS ZACHAEL ESPEJO
notice of something? You should have just let them present
evidence without necessarily resorting to take judicial notice, right?
Prior to the amendment of the rules, Section 3 was really weird
because it required presentation of evidence. Now, it is made clear,
merely by oral arguments.
SINGSON vs. SINGSON
G.R. No. 210766, January 8, 2018
Courts cannot take judicial notice that “personality disorders are
generally incurable” as this is not a matter that courts are
mandated to take judicial notice under Section 1, Rule 129 of
the Rules of Court.
If I remember it correctly, this case tackles Article 36 (Declaration of
nullity of marriage on the ground of psychological capacity) –
psychological incapacity to comply with the essential marital
obligations of marriage.
Article 36 is really weird. Naa ba diay dili marital obligations
ang marriage? Mao gani marital obligations diba kay marriage
siya. Wala ma’y essential marital obligations sa boyfriend and
girlfriend. Wala ma’y ing-ana, diba? So, weird ang
phraseology sa Article 36.
There are three elements for you to make a finding that a party is
psychologically incapacitated:
a) Gravity
b) Juridical antecedence
c) Incurability
In this case, the parties wanted the court to take judicial notice that
the personality disorder is incurable, and therefore, already proven
that the party is psychologically incapacitated. Assuming I
remember the case wrongly, again, you may apply this to Article 36
– you should prove that the personality disorder is incurable. How
do you do that? Usually by testimony of a psychiatrist or clinical
psychologist (as mentioned in Republic v. Molina).
Take note: Case law is now to the effect that the testimony of a
medical practitioner is not indispensable to prove psychological
incapacity.
JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS
Before Amendment
Section 4. Judicial admissions. – An admission, verbal or
written, made by the party in the course of the proceedings in
the same case, does not require proof. The admission may be
contradicted only by showing that it was made through
palpable mistake or that no such admission was made.
After Amendment
Section 4. Judicial admissions. An admission, oral or written,
ACEVEDO . AMISTAD . BAHALLA . CAMPANER . DU . ESCRITOR . ESTROSAS . FERNANDEZ . JAMERO . MACACUA . MAGLINTE . UGDANG
FIRST
EXAM 11
made by the party in the course of the proceedings in the same
case, does not require proof. The admission may be
contradicted only by showing that it was made through
palpable mistake or that the imputed admission was not, in fact,
made. (4a)
CHANGES and COMMENTS
 FIRST. From “verbal or written” to “oral or written”
o With “verbal”, it means relating to or in the form of
words. “Verbal” can therefore be also “written.” It
might also be interpreted to mean actions as the
root word is “verb.”
o With “oral”, it means “by word of mouth or spoken
rather than written.”
o Thus, with the amendment, admissions are now
clearly either spoken (by testimonies or by open
court declarations) or written (by pleadings or other
submissions in writing).
 SECOND. From “no such admission was made” to “the
imputed admission was not, in fact, made”
o This amendment takes into consideration applicable
jurisprudence such as:
o Admission was taken out of context or not in the
sense in which the admission is made to appear
(Atillo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119053,
January 23, 1997)
Remember, when you say imputed admission, you
will not impute something against yourself.
Who is imputing the admission against you?
It will be the adverse party who will “impute” an
admission against the other party.
Definition
 Under the case law, judicial admission or an ADMISSION
IN JUDICIO is a deliberate, clear, unequivocal statement
by a party about a concrete fact within that party’s
knowledge.
 Under the law on pleadings, a judicial admission is a
formal concession in the pleadings or stipulations by a
party or counsel that is binding on the party making
them. Although a judicial admission is not itself evidence,
it has the effect of withdrawing a fact from contention.
SPOUSES BINARAO vs. PLUS BUILDERS, INC.
G.R. No. 154430, June 16, 2006
A party may make judicial admissions in
(a) the pleadings,
(b) during the trial, either by verbal or written
manifestations or stipulations, or
(c) in other stages of the judicial proceeding.
 EVIDENCE
FROM THE LECTURES OF ATTY. JESS ZACHAEL ESPEJO
NOTE also that admissions can be express or implied, verbal or
written.
You can trace it already that from verbal or written, it now
becomes oral or written. The phraseology before is verbal or
written.
ADOLFO vs. ADOLFO
G.R. No. 201427, March 18, 2015
Judicial admissions may be made in
(a) the pleadings filed by the parties,
(b) in the course of the trial either by verbal or written
manifestations or stipulations, or
(c) in other stages of the judicial proceeding, as in the
pre-trial of the case.
Admissions obtained through depositions, written
interrogatories or requests for admission are also considered
judicial admissions.
The facts of this case are very interesting for it allow us to review
some concepts that we have previously learned in remedial law.
What happened in the case of Adolfo vs. Adolfo?
Note: the names of the parties are changed.
ADOLFO vs. ADOLFO
G.R. No. 201427, March 18, 2015
FACTS:
Rrramon is married to Maja. In 2004, Rrramon filed a petition
for judicial separation of property against his estranged wife.
Maja answered that one of the properties is her exclusive
property and therefor should not be made part of any judicial
separation.
Rrramon filed a Request for Admission asking Maja to admit
that, in another case decided by the same court, Maja alleged in
her answer that the same property is conjugal.1 Maja did not
respond to the Request. This other case was pending appeal
before the Court of Appeals.
1
If there’s an admission that such is a conjugal property, then it will
be included in the judicial separation. If it is a paraphernal
property, then it is really an exclusive property of Maja. Hence, not
included in the judicial separation.
What is the effect if you do not respond to the Request for
Admission?
(Take note: This is one of the modes of discovery)
Under Section 2, Rule 26, each of the matter of which an admission
is requested shall be deemed admitted unless you deny it.
ACEVEDO . AMISTAD . BAHALLA . CAMPANER . DU . ESCRITOR . ESTROSAS . FERNANDEZ . JAMERO . MACACUA . MAGLINTE . UGDANG
III - MANRESA SY 2020 – 2021
FIRST
EXAM 12
Section 2. Implied admission. — Each of the matters
of which an admission is requested shall be deemed
admitted unless, within a period designated in the
request, which shall not be less than fifteen (15) days
after service thereof, or within such further time as the
court may allow on motion, the party to whom the
request is directed files and serves upon the party
requesting the admission a sworn statement either
denying specifically the matters of which an admission
is requested or setting forth in detail the reasons why
he cannot truthfully either admit or deny those matters.
What was the Request for Admission about? It’s about
whether you state in your pleadings in that other case that the
property subject of this case is conjugal and not paraphernal.
Maja did not answer so there is now an implied admission
based on Rule 26.
What did Rrramon do now?
…continuation…
Rrramon filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, stating
that since Maja failed to answer his request for admission, the
matters contained in the request are deemed admitted
pursuant to Rule 26, Section 2 and that, as a consequence of the
application of the rule, Maja is in effect considered to have
admitted that the subject property is a conjugal asset of their
subsisting marriage which may thus be the subject of his
petition for judicial separation of property.
The court a quo treated Maja’s failure to respond as an
admission as to the nature of the property, took judicial notice
of its own judgment and records in the other case, treated the
prayer for judgment on the pleadings as one for summary
judgment and rendered summary judgment in favor of
Rrramon.
There was a mistake on the part of the lawyer because what he
asked was Judgment on the Pleadings, but in view of the Court, it
should be for Summary Judgment.
When is it permissible for the court to take judicial notice of its
own judgment or records in a case that is pending before it?
Courts may take judicial notice of a decision or the facts prevailing
in another case sitting in the same court if:
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.
ISSUE: Was the court a quo correct in rendering judgment in
favor of Rrramon on the basis of judicial notice and the judicial
admission attributable to Maja’s failure to respond to the
 EVIDENCE III - MANRESA SY 2020 – 2021
FROM THE LECTURES OF ATTY. JESS ZACHAEL ESPEJO
FIRST
EXAM 13

request for admission? result thereof determines whether the subject property is indeed
conjugal or paraphernal. He may not preempt the appeal in CA-
RULING: G.R CV No. 78971.
The Supreme Court said in the matter of Judicial Notice that
while there is nothing irregular with the taking of judicial notice, Whether its summary judgment or judgment on the pleadings, the
the trial court disregarded the fact that its decision was then Supreme Court said No, because we don’t know if the alleged
the subject of a pending appeal before the Court of Appeals. It admission will be upheld on appeal. Be it again, ruling by the court
should have known that until the appeal is resolved by the was premature.
appellate court, it would be premature to render judgment
on petitioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings; that
REVIEW ON JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AND SUMMARY
it would be presumptuous to assume that its own decision
JUDGMENT (Amended Rules 34 and 35)
would be affirmed on appeal. One of the issues raised in the
appeal is precisely whether the subject property is conjugal, or
JUDGMENT ON THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT
a paraphernal asset of the respondent. Thus, instead of
PLEADINGS
resolving petitioner’s motion for judgment on the
They are similar in the following respects:
pleadings, the trial court should have denied it or held it in
abeyance. 1. They are both modes of accelerated judgment
2. Judgment is accelerated because there is no need for trial or
With that, nadungagan atong knowledge. First, what is the general reception of evidence
rule? 3. In both, all the court has to do is to examine the pleadings
and other matters already on record.
General Rule: A court cannot take judicial notice of the records of
a different case even if it is pending before it, or even if the court WHEN PROPER
has knowledge that it is one handling the case previously. JUDGMENT ON THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT
PLEADINGS
Exception: In the absence of objection, the court may treat it as 1. Proper when an answer fails 1. Proper when there is no
read into the record of the present case to tender an issue or when an genuine issue as to any material
answer otherwise admits all the fact or the issue raised is a sham
July 9 Part 4 | Fernandez material allegations of the issue.
adverse party’s pleadings.
The court may treat it as read into the records of the present case,
just like what we reviewed earlier.
2. The defendant did not make 2. The pleader actually pleaded
But as an exception to the exception: If that case that the court any specific denial of the specific denials and affirmative
wants to take judicial notice of, is still pending appeal, the court allegations in the complaint defenses and therefore tendered
should not take judicial notice of this. and therefore failed to tender issues.
issues.
Because it has no right to presume that it will be upheld on appeal.
After the appeal you can still file a Petition for Review (MTC to RTC; 3. It is the plaintiff, 3. Both the claimant or the
RTC to CA; CA to SC). It’s a long way to go if it’s initially cognizable counterclaimant, cross- defending party can avail of this
by the MTC. But here it’s the CA to SC claimant, or third-party plaintiff remedy
who avails of the remedy
Summary judgment/ Judgment on the Pleadings
….continuation….. 4. Based solely on the 4. Based not only on the
pleadings pleadings but also on affidavits,
Petitioner could not have validly resorted to a motion for judgment admissions, depositions and
on the pleadings or summary judgment. While it may appear that other documents
under Rules 34 and 35 of the 1997 Rules, he may file a motion for
judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment as a result of the Both of them are considered litigious motions under Rule 15,
consequent admission by respondent that the subject property is Section 15
conjugal, this is not the actually the case.
As to the First Distinction
Quite the contrary, by invoking the proceedings and decision in Judgment on the Pleadings
the other civil case, petitioner is precluded from obtaining Q: When is there an issue?
judgment while the appeal in said case is pending, because the A: In a civil complaint, there is an issue when the plaintiff and the
defendant do not agree.

ACEVEDO . AMISTAD . BAHALLA . CAMPANER . DU . ESCRITOR . ESTROSAS . FERNANDEZ . JAMERO . MACACUA . MAGLINTE . UGDANG
 EVIDENCE III - MANRESA SY 2020 – 2021
FROM THE LECTURES OF ATTY. JESS ZACHAEL ESPEJO
Q: When can you say that there issues are already joined?
A: There is the complaint, defendant files answer and defendant
takes issue. Meaning, does not agree to what the complaint states.
Here, the court is informed of the misunderstanding or lack of
agreement between the plaintiff and defendant.
Summary Judgment
When plaintiff asks for Summary Judgment, it means he feels the
defendant is trying to raise an issue when in fact there is supposed
to be no issue. And it can be proven by affidavits and depositions.
As to the Second Distinction
Judgment on the Pleadings
Q: What’s the effect of a general denial in civil procedure?
A: Effect is it’s an admission, because for you to make a denial, you
have to make it specific. You have to tell the court what your
version of the facts is.
Summary Judgment
Defendant tendered issues but were sham (atik2 lang).
As to the Third Distinction
Judgment on the Pleadings
You have to be a claiming party
Summary Judgment
Both the claimant or the defending party can avail
Both Judgment on the pleadings and Summary Judgment are
considered litigious motions
Brought about by the change in the Amended Rules.
Remember in the Old Rules, in Rule 15, when you file a motion it
should be 3 days prior to the intended date of hearing which
should not be less than 10 days from the date of filing of the
motion.
But under the New Rules, it is wholly dependent on the discretion
of the court whether to hear the motion.
Section 1, Rule 34. Judgment on the pleadings. – Where an
answer fails to tender an issue, or otherwise admits the material
allegations of the adverse party’s pleading, the court may; on
motion of that party, direct judgment on such pleading. However,
in actions for declaration of nullity or annulment of marriage or for
legal separation, the material facts alleged in the complaint shall
always be proved.
In actions for declaration of nullity or annulment of marriage or for
legal separation, the abovementioned is always the rule.
Something that would lead to the possibility of collusion or
ACEVEDO . AMISTAD . BAHALLA . CAMPANER . DU . ESCRITOR . ESTROSAS . FERNANDEZ . JAMERO . MACACUA . MAGLINTE . UGDANG
FIRST
EXAM 14
compromise, veracity of allegations should always be proved. And
that there is contention between the parties.
EXAMPLE:
In an action for collection of sum of money, the plaintiff
alleges that the defendant secured a loan from the
plaintiff and there was a prior demand to pay and the
defendant did not pay. The defendant admitted all the
allegations in the complaint and simply prayed to the
court for leniency.
In a case like this, the plaintiff may now apply Rule 34.
He can file a motion in court for Judgment on the
Pleadings. He will ask the court to render judgment
based on what the complaint says and what the answer
says.
There is no more trial or presentation of evidence
because the court can render a decision based on what
the complaint says and what the answer says.
GROUNDS:
1) When an answer fails to tender an issue; or
2) When an answer otherwise admits all the material allegations
of the adverse party’s pleading.
First Ground: Fails to tender an issue
a. When the answer neither admits nor denies the allegations on
the complaint (evasive);
b. When all the denials in the answer are general denials and not
specific. A denial is general if the pleader does not state the
facts relied upon in support of his denial. Such answer does
not tender an issue because all the denials are general, or “no
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief” with
respect to a veracity of the facts stated. (Capitol Motors v.
Yabut)
July 9 Part 5 | Jamero
Rule 35 Summary Judgments
A motion for summary judgment may be filed by the claimant or
defending party.
Section 1, Rule 35. Summary judgment for claimant. — A party
seeking to recover upon a claim, counterclaim, or cross-claim or to
obtain a declaratory relief may, at any time after the pleading in
answer thereto has been served, move with supporting affidavits,
depositions or admissions for a summary judgment in his or her
favor upon all or any part thereof.
What’s the situation here?
 EVIDENCE III - MANRESA SY 2020 – 2021
FROM THE LECTURES OF ATTY. JESS ZACHAEL ESPEJO
The plaintiff filed the complaint; the defendant filed the answer.
Then, at any time after the answer has been served and filed,
makita naman na karon sang plaintiff, uy burit ning issues sang
defendant! Naga imbento lang sya’g defense, therefore I will move
for summary judgment.
What will I do? I will move with supporting affidavits, meaning I
would gather some evidence na written lang no—Affidavits,
depositions or admissions—saying na ang kanang mga
contentions diha sa defendant, atik ra na. Walay tinuod diha, he’s
lying!
Or if it’s for the defending party:
Section 2. Summary judgment for defending party. — A party
against whom a claim, counterclaim, or cross-claim is asserted or a
declaratory relief is sought may, at any time, move with supporting
affidavits, depositions or admissions for a summary judgment in his
or her favor as to all or any part thereof.
Same philosophy applies, same thing that I told you about Section
1, pareha lang gihapon. The defendant feels burit lang nang
complaint sang plaintiff! Imbento lang na sya. Maybe it could be
an anticipatory filing, kay kabalo sya na file-an nako sya’g kaso, gi
unahan na lang ko niya. Pwede, what will he do? He will move with
supporting affidavits, depositions or admissions for summary
judgment to be rendered in his favor.
Review: What are the options available to the defendant after
service of summons? Except motion for extensions. How many
options does he have (at least in the 1997 Rules)? There are 4.
The defendant, after service of summons, has the following
options:
1. File an answer;
2. File a motion for bill of particulars;
3. File a motion to dismiss; or
4. File a motion for summary Judgment
Motion to dismiss (Rule 16) has already been removed
entirely from the Rules of Court. The only time you can
file a motion to dismiss would be, what? When the
ground is lack of jurisdiction of the subject matter, res
adjudicata, litis pendencia, and prescription. Mao nalang
to, kato bitaw 4 grounds that will not be barred even if
you raise them for the first time on appeal. Di jud na sya
ma bar, kana na mga grounds for motion to dismiss. It’s
not barred by the omnibus motion rule, under Rule 9,
Section 1 of the omnibus motion rule. So, mao ni sya ang
imong 4 ka-options.
The filing of a mere motion, either to dismiss or for bill of
particulars, instead of filing an answer, allows the plaintiff to:
(a) amend his complaint as a matter of right under Rule 10,
Section 2; and
(b) dismiss his complaint upon mere notice under Rule 17,
Section 1.
ACEVEDO . AMISTAD . BAHALLA . CAMPANER . DU . ESCRITOR . ESTROSAS . FERNANDEZ . JAMERO . MACACUA . MAGLINTE . UGDANG
FIRST
EXAM 15
When a motion for summary judgment is filed, the plaintiff can
no longer dismiss his complaint upon mere notice. There must
be a motion approved by the court, giving the defendant an
opportunity to be heard.
Q: Can the plaintiff amend his complaint as a matter of
right if the defendant files a motion for summary
judgment in lieu of an answer?
A: Technically, yes. Remember that a motion for summary
judgment is not a pleading. The filing of a responsive
pleading is what converts amendment from one which is
a matter of right to one which is a matter of judicial
discretion.
So, kung dili answer ang imo i-file sa complaint,
kung motion lang—whether a motion to
dismiss or a motion for summary judgment—
pwede gihapon mag amend ang plaintiff sa
iyang pleading as a matter of right.
BUT… Why would a defendant move for summary
judgment instead of filing an answer? The defendant will
only do so because he believes that the plaintiff’s cause
of action against him is a sham. It is non-existent.
Kana bitaw, ay binuang gyud ni, na dili pwede
na kwanon ko lang ni, kana bitaw mu file ko ug
answer because otherwise I am recognizing that
he has a cause of action. Mu-file ko ug
summary judgment.
Knowing this, the plaintiff can simply amend his
complaint to cure a non-existent cause of action. Note
that if it appears to the court that the motion was made
with intent to delay or confer jurisdiction on the court, or
the pleading stated no cause of action from the
beginning which could be amended, the amendment is
substantial and would thus require leave of court to be
made.(Mao nay nakabutang sa Sec. 3, Rule 10.) However,
this does not change the fact that a motion for summary
judgment is not a responsive pleading in the context of
Rule 10, Sec. 2.
Motion ra sya, and because it’s a motion, it
does not affect the plaintiff’s right to amend his
complaint as a matter of right.
Section 3. Motion and proceedings thereon. — The motion shall
cite the supporting affidavits, depositions or admissions, and the
specific law relied upon. The adverse party may file a comment and
serve opposing affidavits, depositions, or admissions within a non-
extendible period of five (5) calendar days from receipt of the
motion. Unless the court orders the conduct of a hearing,
judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings,
supporting affidavits, depositions and admissions on file, show
that, except as to the amount of damages, there is no genuine
issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled
to judgment as a matter of law.
 EVIDENCE III - MANRESA SY 2020 – 2021
FROM THE LECTURES OF ATTY. JESS ZACHAEL ESPEJO
Any action of the court on a motion for summary judgment shall
not be subject of an appeal or petition for certiorari, prohibition or
mandamus. (3a)
1st par: Mao ra to, no genuine issue, Sham issue ra sya.
2 par: That’s a new insertion under Rule 35. So, unsa ning action
nd
na ni that shall not be subject to an appeal? Di nimo pwede i-
appeal, or petition for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus.
Q: What action is the rule talking about that is not
appealable?
A: The action of the court whether granting or denying
the motion for summary judgment, not the summary
judgment itself. Because if it is the summary judgment
itself, meaning gi-dismiss ang complaint sa plaintiff, or
the court granted summary judgment if favor of the
plaintiff and decides in favor of the plaintiff, mao na ang
pwede nimo i-appeal, katong judgment mismo and not
the action. Dili gani pwede ang certiorari, prohibition or
mandamus. Because otherwise, that would be giving an
imprimatur to litigants not to delay the determination of
the main case.
As a general rule, based on jurisprudence, ang pagrender
of summary judgment—that the exception rather than
the general rule. It’s extra-ordinary and rendering of
summary judgment.
Meaning of “genuine issue”
A genuine issue means an issue of fact which calls for the
presentation of evidence, as distinguished from an issue which is
fictitious or contrived or which does not constitute a genuine issue
for trial. (BASBAS vs. SAYSON, G.R. No. 172660, August 24, 2011)
NO GENUINE ISSUE
Question: What differentiates this from “fails to tender an issue”?
When an answer fails to tender an issue, in effect, the plaintiff’s
allegations are all admitted. Because of the admissions, there is no
more need for evidence. (ngano pa man ta magpresent ug
evidence, gidawat nya man tanan) If there is no need for evidence,
there is no need for trial, which under Rule 30, is set for the sole
purpose of receiving evidence (and no other).
July 9 Part 6 | Macacua
Example No. 1
In an action for a collection of sum of money, the plaintiff alleges
that the defendant secured a loan from the plaintiff and there was
a prior demand to pay and the defendant did not pay. The
defendant admitted all the allegations in the complaint and simply
prayed to the court for leniency.
ACEVEDO . AMISTAD . BAHALLA . CAMPANER . DU . ESCRITOR . ESTROSAS . FERNANDEZ . JAMERO . MACACUA . MAGLINTE . UGDANG
FIRST
EXAM 16
Take note, because of the admissions, no need for evidence. No
need for trial, because judicial admission require no proof under
Rule 129 Section 4:
Sec. 4 Judicial admissions. An admission, or or written, made by the
party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not
require proof.
Example No. 2
In an action for collection of sum of money, the plaintiff alleges
that the defendant secured a loan from the plaintiff and there was
a prior demand to pay and the defendant did not pay. The
defendant specifically denied all the allegations in the complaint.
How will he make a specific denial?
Specific Denial
Defendant specifically denies the allegations in the complaint
insofar as it alleges that the defendant secured a loan from the
plaintiff, that there was a prior demand to pay and that defendant
has not paid yet. The truth of the matter is that the defendant did
not secure a loan from the Plaintiff and, assuming that there was a
loan, defendant has already paid it.
Question:
Do you notice something here? Do you notice something
about the specific denial of the defendant? What do you
notice from his defense?
Answer:
The specific denial of the defendant is wholly
inconsistent. You cannot deny a loan and at the same
time allege that you have already paid it. Thus, the issue
raised, even if there is a specific denial, is not genuine. At
least one of them is clearly a sham issue.
In that sham issue, what would be the effect? Pwede ka
mag-move for summary judgment. Kay sham jud nah,
either one of them is sham.
Example No. 3
In an action for collection of sum of money, the plaintiff alleges
that the defendant secured a loan from the plaintiff and the
defendant did not pay. The defendant specifically denied all the
allegations in the complaint. How will he make a specific denial?
Specific Denial
Defendant specifically denies the allegations in the complaint
insofar as it alleges that the defendant secured a loan from the
plaintiff, that there was a prior demand topay and that defendant
has not paid yet. The truth of the matter is that, while defendant
did indeed secure a loan from the plaintiff, defendant has already
paid it.
 EVIDENCE
FROM THE LECTURES OF ATTY. JESS ZACHAEL ESPEJO
Very clear iyang denial, naa koy utang pero gibayran ko na na. It is
an Affirmative Defense, a defense of confession and avoidance.
Oo, I admit that I have a debt. But, I am avoiding payment because
I already paid it. Diba affirmative defense na under the rule on
pleadings.
There are three (3) possible situations there:
Possibility No. 1
Defendant has already paid the plaintiff
(payment)
If defendant has already paid the plaintiff, he will plead
the existence of an actionable document, a receipt (or
katong giuli na na promissory note). Thus, under Rule 8,
Section 7, the substance of such document shall be set
forth in the pleading, and the original or a copy thereof
shall be attached to the pleading as an exhibit, which
shall be deemed to be a part of the pleading, or said
copy may with like effect be set forth in the pleading. (at
least under the 1997 Rules).
In this situation, there is a need to proceed to trial
because reception of evidence (receipt) must be had. The
plaintiff cannot move for judgment on the pleadings
because there is a specific denial. In fact, the plaintiff has
to file a reply under oath. Otherwise, the existence and
due execution of the receipt would be deemed admitted
(Rule 8, Section 8).
In the same situation, the plaintiff cannot move for
summary judgment because the existence of a receipt for
payment tenders a genuine issue. The only time that that
receipt will not tender a genuine issue is when, if that
receipt is forged. Forgery siya, gipeke lang. In order for
the plaintiff to properly argue na peke lang siya, and
therefore it’s a sham issue, he needs to move affidavits,
depositions or admissions. So, if there really is a genuine
receipt, there is a need to go to trial to receive evidence
as to their respective claims and defense of the parties.
Possibility No. 2
Defendant has really paid the plaintiff but has no proof
(payment, no proof)
Defendant really paid the plaintiff but he was never
issued a receipt or maybe he lost his receipt. What will
happen?
Defendant will prove by testimony the circumstances that
show that he has already has paid. What is the ultimate
effect? Reception of evidence is still required. Hence, the
plaintiff cannot move for summary judgment.
ACEVEDO . AMISTAD . BAHALLA . CAMPANER . DU . ESCRITOR . ESTROSAS . FERNANDEZ . JAMERO . MACACUA . MAGLINTE . UGDANG
III - MANRESA SY 2020 – 2021
FIRST
EXAM 17
IMPORTANT: Summary Judgment and Judgment of the
Pleadings, none of them are viable if there is still a
requirement to present evidence.
If there is anything that needs to be presented to the
court, to determine a particular issue, if naa pay evidence,
dili ta mag-accelerated judgment.
Possibility No. 3
Defendant never really paid the plaintiff
(no payment)
In other words, he is inventing a defense. Nangatik ra. He
is lying. Even if he specifically denied the allegations in
the complaint and attempted to make an issue,
everything is a SHAM. This time, the plaintiff can move
for summary judgment on the ground that the answer
fails to raise a genuine issue.
What will the plaintiff do?
The plaintiff will move with supporting affidavits,
depositions or admissions for a summary judgment in his
favor. In other words, he will attach his proof that the
defendant has never really paid. He will tell the Court that
the defendant is lying. That’s the simplest I can explain,
Rule 35 for you.
Take note, the defendant has the option to oppose the
motion together with his affidavits, depositions or
admissions. But if he never really paid the plaintiff, he
would not have any proof. Take not also na if wala gyud
niya gibayran ang plaintiff, unsa may proof niya?
Example No. 4
Plaintiff filed an action to collect a loan based on a promissory
note, claiming that the defendant has not paid him yet. In his
answer, defendant admitted that the plaintiff’s pleading states no
cause of action as the promissory note is not yet due. That’s an
affirmative defense, that’s allowed. Can the plaintiff move for
summary judgment? Can the defendant, for that matter, move for
summary judgment also?
Analysis
Q: How will the court determine the maturity date of the
promissory note?
A: By looking at the complaint. The promissory note and
its maturity date are there. The attachments, the
promissory note being an actionable document should
be there.
Q: Would the court require reception of evidence to
determine if the note is due or not?
A: No. Everything is stated in the pleadings.
 EVIDENCE III - MANRESA SY 2020 – 2021
FROM THE LECTURES OF ATTY. JESS ZACHAEL ESPEJO
Q: If the plaintiff moves for summary judgment, what will
happen?
A: If the court determines that the promissory note is
already due by examining the pleadings only, there is no
more need for trial. The Court will simply order the
defendant to pay. Anyway, the defendant already
admitted the existence of the loan. In effect, the
defendant did not raise a genuine issue.
That is when sometimes the Judgment on the Pleadings can
become confusing with Summary Judgment. Unsa may basis diri sa
korte? Tha pleadings, but it’s not summary judgment. Why?
Because the defendant tried to make issue, nag-deny siya. Except
that, hindi siya genuine issue. Kay pag mag ingon siyag dili pa man
maturity sa note pero klaro, makita nimo sa pleadings by pleading
an actionable document that it’s already matured.
Q: Can the defendant move for summary judgment?
A: Yes. In effect, he is telling the court to simply look at
the attached promissory not and see that the debt is not
yet due. If the debt is not yet due, the court will dismiss
the case on the ground of prematurity. Premature pa
man, wala pa man nag-ripen imong cause of action. The
complaint did not raise a genuine issue. In fact, there is
still no cause of action yet because there is no violation.
I hope that clarifies Rule 34 in relation to Rule 35. Ang point lang
nako na gi-raise didto, ang point nga gusto nako mahinumduman
ninyo:
You need to know the subtle differences between judgment on the
pleadings and summary judgment (Rule 35). You need to
remember that kay favourite na sa Bar Examinations. Not to
mention the fact that Rule 34 and Rule 35 would be proper if the
resolution of the issue, whether it is not a genuine issue or whether
giadmit tanan but would require still the presentation of evidence.
Dili proper ang Rule 34 and Rule 35 if manginahanglan pa og
presentation of evidence.
Why? Gipangutana nako na sa akong estudyante last year. Nobody
got the question.
ADMISSIONS ON THE PLEADINGS
Admissions can be made in both initatory and responsive
pleadings.
Pwede ba ka naay admissions in the complaint? Pwede.
Example No. 1
In a complaint, defendant Geronimo contracted a loan
with plaintiff Sarah. While defendant had paid the first 5
installments, all succeeding installments remain unpaid.
ACEVEDO . AMISTAD . BAHALLA . CAMPANER . DU . ESCRITOR . ESTROSAS . FERNANDEZ . JAMERO . MACACUA . MAGLINTE . UGDANG
FIRST
EXAM 18
Unsa ang admission diha sa complaint, ang first 5
installments nabayran na, ang remaining kay wala pa. The
first part is an admission, the latter part is an allegation.
In an answer, defendant admits the allegations contained
in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the complaint inasmuch as they
merely allege the personal circumstances and capacities
of the parties.
Usually, ginaadmit na lang namo na. I deny that he is a a
juridical being given civil personality by the law! Alangan
muingon pag ing ana, admit na lang na oy. Diba civil
personality is determined by birth.
Example No. 2
Actionable Documents
It is a document which is the foundation of your cause of
action or defense. And the law tells you how to plead an
actionable document.
The requirement that, kung wala nimo gi-deny under
oath ang actionable document, you are deemed to have
already admitted the genuineness and due execution of
that actionable document.
Section 8, Rule 8. How to contest such documents. — When an
action or defense is founded upon a written instrument, copied in
or attached to the corresponding pleading as provided in the
preceding section, the genuineness and due execution of the
instrument shall be deemed admitted unless the adverse party,
under oath specifically denies them, and sets forth what he claims
to be the facts, but the requirement of an oath does not apply
when the adverse party does not appear to be a party to the
instrument or when compliance with an order for an inspection of
the original instrument is refused.
Casent Realty vs Philbanking
GR No. 150731, 14 Sept 2007
Since respondent failed to file a Reply, in effect, respondent
admitted the genuineness and due execution of said
documents. This judicial admission should have been
considered by the appellate court in resolving the demurrer to
evidence. This is pursuant to Rule 129, Section 4 of the Rules of
Court.
IMPORTANT: Under the Rules of Procedure (1997), filing of reply
is optional. If you do not file a reply, all matters alleged in the
answer are deemed automatically controverted.
In Casent Realty vs Philbanking (2007), you need to file a reply. It is
not optional to file a reply here, according to the Supreme Court.
 EVIDENCE III - MANRESA SY 2020 – 2021
FROM THE LECTURES OF ATTY. JESS ZACHAEL ESPEJO
Under the Amended Rules (2020), plaintiff may file a reply only if
the defending party attaches an actionable document to his or her
answer.
NATURE OF REPLY UNDER THE AMENDED RULES
Section 10, Rule 6. Reply. – All new matters alleged in the answer
are deemed controverted. If the plaintiff wishes to interpose any
claims arising out of the new matters so alleged, such claims shall
be set forth in an amended or supplemental complaint. However,
the plaintiff may file a reply only if the defending party
attaches an actionable document to his or her answer.
What is this? This is Casent Realty vs Philbanking. It is a case where
jurisprudence becoming the Rule.
July 9 Part 7 | Maglinte
 A reply is a pleading, the office or function of which is to deny,
or allege facts in denial or avoidance of new matters alleged
in, or relating to, said actionable document.
 In the event of an actionable document attached to the reply,
the defendant may file a rejoinder if the same is based solely
on an actionable document.
Under the 1997 rules, there are 7 pleadings allowed, but under the
amended rules, there are 8.
1. Complaint
2. Answer
3. Reply
4. Counterclaim
5. Crossclaim
6. Third-(fourth) party complaint
7. Complaint-in-intervention
8. Rejoinder
The rejoinder is filed if an actionable document is attached to the
reply.
Rule 8, section 8 specifically applies to actions or defenses founded
upon a written instrument and provides the manner of denying it.
It is more controlling that Rule 6, Section 10 which merely provides
the effect of failure to file a Reply. Thus, where the defense in the
Answer is based on an actionable document, a Reply specifically
denying it under oath must be made; otherwise, the genuineness
and due execution will be deemed admitted.
EFFECTS OF AMENDMENT
Sec. 9. Effect of amended pleadings. – An amended pleading
supersedes the pleading that it amends. However, admissions in
superseded pleadings may be offered in evidence against the
pleader, and claims or defenses alleged therein not
incorporated in the amended pleading shall be deemed waived.
EFFECT OF ADMISSIONS MADE IN THE ORIGINAL PLEADING
ACEVEDO . AMISTAD . BAHALLA . CAMPANER . DU . ESCRITOR . ESTROSAS . FERNANDEZ . JAMERO . MACACUA . MAGLINTE . UGDANG
FIRST
EXAM 19
 Admissions made in the original pleadings cease to be judicial
admissions (Ching v. CA, 331 SCRA 16).
 They are to be considered as extrajudicial admissions (Torres
v. CA, 131 SCRA 224).
 However, admissions in superseded pleadings may be
received in evidence against the pleader (Sec. 8, Rule 10, Rules
of Court) and in order to be utilized as extrajudicial
admissions, they must be formally offered in evidence (Ching
v. CA, 331 SCRA 16).
(b) Admissions during trial
 Admissions during trial can be verbal or written.
 A verbal judicial admission can take in the form of a
manifestation or testimony in court. A written judicial
admission can be in motions, written manifestations,
briefs, memoranda, affidavits and even in a submission in
answer to a request for admission.
(c) Admission in other stages
 There can also be admissions in other sages of a case
such as
o PRE-TRIAL (Admissions and stipulations of fact
are mandatory subjects of pre-trial)
o THE AVAILMENT OF DISCOVERY PROCEDURES
before trial or pending appeal (ex. Depositions,
request of admission etc.)
CONSTANTINO v. HEIRS OF CONSTANTINO
Judicial admissions are legally binding on the party making the
admissions. Pre-trial admission in civil cases is one of the instances
of judicial admissions explicitly provided for under Section 7, Rule
18 of the Rules of Court, which mandates that the contents of the
pre-trial order shall control the subsequent course of the action,
thereby, defining and limiting the issues to be tried.
Once the stipulations are reduced into writing and signed by the
parties and their counsels, they become binding on the parties who
made them. They become judicial admissions of the fact or facts
stipulated. Even if placed at a disadvantageous position, a party
may not be allowed to rescind them unilaterally, it must assume
the consequences of the disadvantage.
A party who judicially admits a fact cannot later challenge a fact
cannot later challenge the fact as judicial admissions are a waiver
of proof; production of evidence is dispensed with. A judicial
admission also removes an admitted fact from the filed of
controversy. Consequently, an admission made in the pleadings
cannot be controverted by the party making such admission and
are conclusive to such party, and all proofs to the contrary or
inconsistent therewith should be ignored, whether objection is
interposed by the party or not. The allegations, statements or
admissions contained in a pleading are conclusive as against the
pleader. A party cannot subsequently take a position contrary of or
inconsistent with what was pleaded.
 EVIDENCE III - MANRESA SY 2020 – 2021
FROM THE LECTURES OF ATTY. JESS ZACHAEL ESPEJO
FIRST
EXAM 20

admissions made for the purpose of dispensing with proof of some

STATEMENT OF THE RULE AND EFFECTS facts are in the nature of judicial admissions.
Well-settled is the rule that the judicial admissions are conclusive
on the party making them (Konghun v. UCPB, G.R. NO. 154334) An admission made by counsel is binding upon the client.

Conclusive – you cannot present countervailing proof. FULE v. CA

SANTIAGO VS DELOS SANTOS
An admission cannot be controverted by the party making such
admission and are conclusive as to him and that all proofs
submitted by him contrary thereto or inconsistent therewith shall
be ignored whether objection is interposed by the party or not.
The omission of the signature of the accused and his counsel, as
mandatorily required by the Rules, renders the stipulation of facts
inadmissible in evidence. The confirmation by the defense of the
said stipulation of facts by a memorandum does not cure the
defect because the Rules require both the accused and his counsel
to sign such stipulation of facts.

MUST BE MADE IN THE SAME CASE
REPUBLIC GLASS VS QUA
To constitute a judicial admission, it must be made in the same
case in which it is offered. If made in another case or court, the fact
of such admission must be proved as in the case of any other fact.
Although, if made in a judicial proceeding, it is entitled to greater
weight.
EXCEPTIONS
The admissions may be contradicted only b showing
1. That the mistake was made through PALABLE MISTAKE;
or
2. That NO SUCH ADMISSION WAS IN FACT MADE.
PALPABLE MISTAKE
 Palpable mistakes are mistakes that are obvious to all
sides. These are mistakes that are glaring that the judge
or the adverse party can see that there was really no
admission made.
 Under the old rules, this is the only exception to the rule
that a judicial admission binds the party making it.
What the prosecution should have done, upon discovering that the
accused did not sign the Stipulation of Facts, as required by Rule
118, was to submit evidence to establish the elements of the crime,
instead of relying solely on the supposed admission of the accused
in the Stipulation of Facts.
Section 2. Pre-trial agreement. — All agreements or admissions
made or entered during the pre-trial conference shall be reduced
in writing and signed by the accused and counsel, otherwise, they
cannot be used against the accused. The agreements covering the
matters referred to in section 1 of this Rule shall be approved by
the court.
Compare the ruling of Fule . CA and King v. People
KING v. PEOPLE
True, a pretrial agreement not signed by a party is inadmissible.
However, the conviction of petitioner was based not on that
agreement but on the documents submitted during the trial, all of
which were admitted without any objection from her counsel.

NO SUCH ADMISSION WAS MADE In Fule, prosecutor merely relied on the confession made during
 They have not been made at all (Palma Devt Corp v. the pre-trial, and no other evidence was presented. In King v.
Municipality of Malangas Zamboanga del Sur, GR People, the conviction was based not merely on the confession, but
152492) rather on the documents admitted without nay admission.
 Admission was taken out of context or not in the sense in
which the admission is made to appear (Atillo v. CA, GR
119053)

ATILLO III VS CA
If a party invokes an admission of an adverse party but cites the
admission out of context, then the one making the admission may
show that he made no show admission or that the admission was
taken out of context. This may be interpreted to mean not in the
sense in which the admission is made to appear that is the reason
for the codifier “such”.

SILOT v. DEL ROSA

More importantly, Silot's counsel clearly made admissions of the
content of the testimony of witness Goingo, whose presentation
was dispensed with. In People v. Hernandez, we held that

ACEVEDO . AMISTAD . BAHALLA . CAMPANER . DU . ESCRITOR . ESTROSAS . FERNANDEZ . JAMERO . MACACUA . MAGLINTE . UGDANG
 EVIDENCE III - MANRESA SY 2020 – 2021
FROM THE LECTURES OF ATTY. JESS ZACHAEL ESPEJO
FIRST
EXAM 21

ACEVEDO . AMISTAD . BAHALLA . CAMPANER . DU . ESCRITOR . ESTROSAS . FERNANDEZ . JAMERO . MACACUA . MAGLINTE . UGDANG