7/28/2019 RP vs CA et al

1/2

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

vs.

COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

Essence of the case: Permissible judicial notice of judicial record

Judicial notice will be taken of the record, pleading or judgment of a case in another court

between the same parties or involving one of the same parties as well as of the record of anothercase between different parties in the same court. Judicial notice will also be taken of court

personnel.

Facts:

Josefa Gacot claimed a parcel of land, the area of which is not indicated, in Palawan. Gacotclaims that she has been in actual possession of the property for more than 30 year and boughtthe land from Cipriana Dantic-Llanera by virtue of a deed of sale and introduced improvement

thereon and paid taxes for the land in her name. It appears that a certain Ceferino Sabenacio is a

co-owner of the land who later waived his claim in favor of Gacot and admitted that he was only

a boundary owner of the land and it was Gacot who is in actual possession of it. Prior to thehearing, the Land Registration Authority intervened, calling the attention of the court on the

decision made by Judge Lorenzo Garlitos declaring the property as owned by the Republic.

However, it did not bar Gacos from filing her answer, presenting evidence of her actualpossession of the said property and tax declaration and payment made in her name. The counsel

of the petitioner did not present evidence and submitted the case for resolution.

The court rendered a decision in favor of Gacot thus the Solicitor General elevated the case to

the CA and filed a motion for the court to reopen and remand the case back to the trial court to

allow the Republic to present the decision of Judge Garlitos which motion was granted by thecourt. The hearing was set several times and Gacot was able to submit her memorandum while

the Republic was unable to submit any evidence to support the claim of the government in court.

For failure of the government to refute and to present their evidence contrary to Gacots claim,the court decided not to disturb its former decision.

The Republic assailed the decision of the court invoking 2061 that set the time limit of filing an

application for the reopening of judicial proceedings on certain lands declared as public land, aprovision thereof provides that the application for judicial proceeding should not extend beyond

Dec. 31, 1968. Gacot only filed her claim on June 7, 1971 thus the court did not acquired

jurisdiction on her claim as she did not file her answer within the period fixed by RA 2061.

7/28/2019 RP vs CA et al

2/2

Issue: Whether or not the court has acquired jurisdiction over the case?

Ruling:The Court held that what the Solicitor General claims would have been operative if it were able

to present evidence during the rehearing of the case proving the alleged decision of JudgeGarlitos declaring the property as public land. However they failed to offer evidence on theirclaim and the court cannot take judicial notice of such claim in the absence of any proof

presented before the court. The appellate court remanded the case back to the trial court to allow

the Republic to present evidence which they failed to do.

It is a settled rule that the court shall not consider evidence that has not been formally offered

before it. The court cannot take judicial knowledge of the contents of the record of other cases, inthe adjudication of the cases pending before them even if the trial judge knows or remember the

contents thereof. While the case is on trial, Josefa Gacot passed away and her heirs were

impleaded to substitute her as the party to the case. The court held to lax on the technical rules ofprocedure in the case and to expedite the proceeding take a liberal construction on the laws to

meet advance the cause of substantial justice. Because the lot area awarded to Gacot was not

specified in the records and based on the certification of the Forest Management Services of the

Department of Environment and Natural Resources, some of the lots in the area are classified asalienable and disposable land, while some portion are timber land that forms part of the

Mangrove Swamp Forest Reserve. The court decided to remand back to the trial court the case

for proper disposition of the conflicting claims of the parties.