CLT Realty Development v.

Hi-Grade Feeds
September 2, 2015 | PEREZ, J
Judicial Notice; When Mandatory (Rule 129, Sec. 1)
Doctrine: The Senate Report, an official act of the legislative department, may be taken judicial notice of.

Judicial notice is the cognizance of certain facts that judges may properly take and act on without proof

because these facts are already known to them; it is the duty of the court to assume something as a

matter of fact without need of further evidentiary support. Otherwise stated, by the taking of judicial

notice, the court dispenses with the traditional form of presentation of evidence, i.e. the rigorous rules
of

evidence and court proceedings such as cross-examination.

Case Summary:

Facts:
Petitioner CLT Realty Development Corporation and respondent Hi-Grade Feeds Corporation have

overlapping properties within the Maysilo Estate notoriously known as the “Land of Caveat Emptor”

because of the numerous legal disputes it has spawned.

In particular, CLT and Hi-Grade both claim the genuineness and validity of their respective OCT No. 994

mother titles. OCT No. 994 is one of the five (5) mother titles covering the vast Maysilo estate.

Respondent Hi-Grade is the registered owner of TCT Nos. 237450 and T-146941, which are ultimately

derived from OCT No. 994 dated 3 May 1917. On the other hand, CLT is the registered owner of TCT

No. T-177013, which is traced from OCT No. 994 dated 19 April 1917.

CLT filed before the Caloocan City RTC a case for annulment of TCTs, recovery, and damages against

Hi-Grade. The RTC decided in favor of CLT, ruling, among other things, that Hi-Grade’s title suffers from

patent defects and infirmities.

Hi-Grade elevated the case to the CA. During the pendency of the appeal, Hi-Grade filed a Motion to

Admit and Take Judicial Notice of Committee Report on Senate Inquiry into Maysilo Estate Submitted

by the Committees on Justice and Human Rights and on Urban Planning, Housing and Resettlement

(Senate Report) on 1 July 1998. The CA granted the motion stating, however, that although it takes
judicial notice of the Senate Report, the CA is not bound by the findings and conclusions therein.

The CA eventually reversed the RTC’s decision, upholding the validity of Hi-Grade’s land title.

CLT filed before the SC a petition for review on certiorari raising, among other arguments, that the CA

totally disregarded the rules on evidence and surrendered the independence of the judiciary by taking

judicial notice of the Senate Report which, CLT alleges, was rendered pursuant to proceedings initiated

and conducted without notice to CLT and thus in gross violation of its right to due process, and was

based on documents that were never authenticated.

Issue: Whether the CA erred in taking judicial notice of the Senate Report – NO
Ruling:
Taking judicial notice of acts of the Senate is well within the ambit of the law. Section 1 of Rule 129 of

the Revised Rules on Evidence provides:

“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)”

Judicial notice is the cognizance of certain facts that judges may properly take and act on without proof

because these facts are already known to them; it is the duty of the court to assume something as a

matter of fact without need of further evidentiary support.

Otherwise stated, by the taking of judicial notice, the court dispenses with the traditional form of

presentation of evidence, i.e. the rigorous rules of evidence and court proceedings such as cross-

examination.

The Senate Report shall not be conclusive upon the courts, but will be examined and evaluated based

on its probative value.

Also, taking of judicial notice of the Senate Report does not violate the republican principle of

separation of powers because, although the finding of the Senate committees may be the appropriate

basis for remedial legislation, when the issue of the validity of a Torrens title is submitted to a court for
MAGDALO PARA SA PAGBABAGO v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
G.R. No. 190793, 19 June 2012, EN BANC (Sereno, J.)

FACTS: MAGDALO filed its Petition for Registration with the respondent COMELEC as a regional

political party based in the NCR for participation in the 2010 National and Local Elections. It was

represented by its Chairperson, Senator Trillanes IV, and its Secretary General, Francisco
Acedillo.

Taking cognizance of the Oakwood incident, the COMELEC denied the Petition, claiming that

MAGDALO’s purpose was to employ violence and unlawful means to achieve their
goals.

MAGDALO contends 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.

ISSUE: Whether COMELEC gravely abused its discretion when it denied the Petition for Registration
not on the basis of facts or evidence on record, but on mere speculation and conjectures.

HELD: NO. The Oakwood incident was widely known and extensively covered by the media made
it a proper subject of judicial notice. Public knowledge of facts pertaining to employment of violence

and unlawful means to achieve one’s goals is within the determination of the COMELEC, and such fact is

sufficient to deny a party registration and accreditation. Under Article IX-C, Section 2(5) of the 1987

Constitution, parties, organizations and coalitions that “seek to achieve their goals through

violence or unlawful means” shall be denied registration. This disqualification is reiterated in

Section 61 of B.P. 881, which provides that “no political party which seeks to achieve its goal through

violence shall be entitled to accreditation.”

Executive Order No. 292, otherwise known as the Revised Administrative Code, specifically

empowers administrative agencies to admit and give probative value to evidence commonly

acceptable by reasonably prudent men, and to take notice of judicially cognizable facts. Further,

under the Rules of Court, judicial notice may be taken of matters that are of “public

knowledge, or are capable of unquestionable demonstration.”

SPOUSES OMAR & MOSHIERA LATIP v. ROSALIE CHUA GR No. 177809 16
October 16, 2009

Facts: Rosalie is the owner of Roferxane Building in Baclaran. A year after the commencement of
the lease, Rosalie, through counsel, sent the spouses a latter demanding payment of back rentals
and should they fail to do so to vacate the leased cubicles. When spouses did not heed Rosalie’s
demand, she filed a complaint for unlawful detainer + damages against them. She attached to the
complaint a contract of lease over 2 cubicles in Roferxane Bldg. Spouses Latip asserted that the
lease of the 2 cubicles had already been paid in full as evidenced by receipts showing payment to
Rosalie of the total amount of P2,570,000. Spouses averred that the contract of lease they signed
had been novated by their purchase of lease rights of the subject cubicles. Thus, they were
surprised to receive a demand letter from Rosalie’s counsel.

Issue: Whether the judicial notice by the CA is proper.

Held: No. The matter which the CA judicial notice of does not meet the requisite of notoriety. Only
CA took judicial notice of this supposed practice to pay goodwill money to the lessor in the Baclaran
area. Rosalie, apart from her bare allegation, adduced no evidence to prove her claim that the
amount of P2M+ simply constituted the payment of goodwill money. requisite of notoriety is belied by
the necessity of attaching documentary evidence, i.e., Joint Affidavit of the stallholders. In short, the
alleged practice still had to be proven by Rosalie; contravening the title itself of Rule 129 of the
Rules of Court—What need not be proved.

On this point, State Prosecutors v. Muro10 is instructive:

I. The doctrine of judicial notice rests on the wisdom and discretion of the courts. The power to take
judicial notice is to be exercised by courts with caution; care must be taken that the requisite
notoriety exists; and every reasonable doubt on the subject should be promptly resolved in the
negative.

Generally speaking, matters of judicial notice have three material requisites: (1) the matter must be
one of common and general knowledge; (2) it must be well and authoritatively settled and not
doubtful or uncertain; and (3) it must be known to be within the limits of the jurisdiction of the court.
The principal guide in determining what facts may be assumed to be judicially known is that of
notoriety. Hence, it can be said that judicial notice is limited to facts evidenced by public records and
facts of general notoriety.