Anda di halaman 1dari 18






Where proffered evidence is of substantial probative value, ancl will nct tend to prejudice or confuse the fact-finders, all doubt should be resolved in favor of admissibility.rt



t t


RULE 129 Section 1. Judicial notiae, when ntandatory. A court shall take judicial notice, rvithout the introduction of evidence, - the existence and tenitorial extent of states, their political history, forms of government and symbols of nationality, the larv 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 the legislative, executive and judicial departments of the Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure of time, and the geographical divisions.
1. Judicial notice defined. 2. Basis of judicial notice. 3. Kinds of judicial notice.
prsitively identified by a credit'le rvitness. Pcople n*. Pcran,te, Jr., 149 SCRA 56; Pco\tle oa. Abigan., lltlt SCRA 180; People as. I.ltlrlantors, gs SCRA 76li People os. Herila, 51 SCRA 31 ; People as. Cobanit, 159 SCRA 94, In rnany criminal cases one of the most important aids in completing the proof of the conrmission of the crime by the aecused is the introduction of evidence diselosing motive which tempted the mind to indulge in the aet. U.S. os. Carlos, 75
Evidence of circumstatrces tending to show that flight of one accused of an offense rvas not because of sense of guilt or fear of arrest or to show motive consistent



Tra.rnnr.ell, 160 So. 897, 930 Aln. 275. The conduct, actions, and general behavior of the accused, immediatell' preceding the homicide, are relevant to show that he was armed and in a various humor. Kertnn as. State,65 lltcl.95g,4 A. 121*; Com. us. Ectton'8 PhiL (Pa.) 49s; Stutc,us. Trankil, 71 S.C. 136, 50 S.E. 551, The grounds on which the conduct and general demeanor of the accused after the crime are held relevant is usually held +o be their indication of a corrsciousness <rf guilt. Palm,er us. State (Ala. A) 73 S. 199. The existenee of a plan or design to do a certain act, may properly be showrt because it leads to an inference when the act is done, that'the same. is the result of the plan or design. Cook os. Mocra, 11 Cttsh. 213. Evidenee that a person has made a threat to commit a crime, is receivable against him, because it creates the probahility, onee the crime is eommitted, that he is the author thereof. Stokes us. People, 59 N.Y. 175. If the accused was the only one rvho had the opportunity to do the act charged, such circumstance may be taken against him. Exclusive opportunity, however, is not essentral. It is enough that the person charged had an opportunity to do the act, if such circumstance, added to the chain of other ciroumstances, leads to the irrference that he is really the author of such act, People 'os. Kamad., 51, O.G, 40. T'he fact that the accused was seen near the place where the corpse lay was considered as a circumstance against him. U,S. r:s. Aquino,27 Phil. 169; People tts. I)ah.itto, G.i?. No. I'2067, Febraaty 26, 1951, The unexplained fact that a man was found at a late hour of the night in a room rvith another's wife, she being in bed and absent from her husband's home without his consent, was held sufficient to sustain a conviction for the.crime of adultery. U.S. .us. Legaspi, 14 PhiL 38. lVhere a man and a woman accused of adultery were seen in scant apparel and sleeping together, there was every opportunity for them to satisfy their adulterous relations and that carnal knowledge did take place is in accord with all the probabi-

with innocence, such as advice of friends, is admissible. Home Ins. Co. of New
York as.

lities. U.,S. os, Felieiano, 36 PlLiI. 758. 21 U.S. vs. Allison, 414 F.2d 286, 289 (C.A. Sthla 342 I'. 2d 163 (C,A. sth Ga. 1965).

19?3) citing

Ilalt vs. U.S.,




sEc. 1, RULE


4. Application of doctrine of judicial notice not confined to courts of record. of proof. f. f:fiect of judiciat notiee on burden 6. Stip;ttt"n of parties cannot prevail.ovei operation of doctrine of judicial notice. 7. Mitters subjecl to mandatory judicial notice. What is iudtciul notice? QUESTION t. The term "judicial notice", means no nlol than tl-rrlt ANSWER. - to its aid and consider' without -ry9of of the facts, the court will bring itr t "o"'tuage of t"hose matters of public ccncet'n which are known by all well-informed Persons.l QUESTION 2. What is th'e obiect of iudicial notice'? The obiect of jutticial notice is to save time, labor and ANSWER. securtng and introducing evidence on matters which ane not "*pu"r.ln .opJUt" 6t ai.putu antl ar[ not actually bona fide disputed, and "tAi""rify from the tlibunal's general G;;. oC *rti.ii can- iafety be assumed th; part. Judicial notice, is thereits i.**fuag" or from a slight search on

fore, baslcl upon convenience and expediency.l What s're the t$nds oi iud'icial noticc? QUESTION 3. two kinds: man* ANS\\rER. Th'e taking of judicial notice is ofas those matters insofal manclatory ti_ is datory :ind discretionary. discretionary but concetned, 129 are Rule 1, S""iiott under iriumLrated publie knowledge, or *ao" Section 2 thereof on matters which are of *i- ."p"Uf" of unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known to judges because of their functions.s Is the apphcation of the rule of iu'ilicial not'ice QUESTION 4. confi,ned only to courts? To take judicial notice tlnd apply it to the decision of ANSWER. from the o .ui" ii a right *iti.1 appertains to every court of iustice,judicial,.notice of doctrine of ihe application The i;;;i, To tr.t" Iich.rt. is not'confined to-couits of recbra. Certain boards and special tribunats the which are not strictty courts but which partake of their nature and judicial judgments take may bf p"itake nature of the finai"g. *tti"tt certain matters.a notiee of"f What is the direct effect of iul,icial notice u,pon QUESTION 5. the burden of prooing a fact? The direct effect of jutlicial notice upon the burden ANSWER. ihe parties fiom the necessity of introducing of proving a fact-is io "efieve evidence 1o prove-the fact notic'ed.5 Judicial notice, i1 ils appropriate iield, displacis evidencr*in.u as it stands for proof,-it fulfills the objeet is designed to fulfill and make^s evidence unnecessary'G *fri.ft "uid"n.e Mw stipulations of the.nlyt!.ep or their counsel QUESTION 6. prrri,ii oner the operation of ihe doctrine of itr'dicial noti'ce?

their counsel can

ANSWER._No.StipulationsandadmissionsoftheP|r!ie:.o1 judicial
"ot p".u"ii over the operation of the doctrine of

t St"1[.. Kelly, 81 P. 460, ?1 Kan. 811, ?0 L.R.A' 450, 6 Ann' Cas' 298' :;2 Wigmore on Evidenoe, Sec. 2565. 3Secs.'i and 2, Rule 129, Rules of Court, as amended' .. Co. vs. riim vs. colecto"-of-cLito*i,' ,36 Phil. 4?2; International Harvester vs. Union Ins' Ur*[r,ig"'iili- t i"J, &- ittit. 845 : Phil. llfanufacturing ..Co. 5f canton,4zlhii. a?8; Adong vs. cheong seng Gee,43 Phil.52. s&i"ti r McKelvey on Evidence, 19. oChiulla bu lu.u-i.. Uo"iiora Park Com'rs.,94 Conn. ?, 107 A.611' 612.

sEc. 1, RULE




of the doctrine.i

notice, and such stipulations :intl admissions :rre all subject to the operation


G.i'ue exam,ples

WhaL facts e,,.e subject



manclato,ry juilici,nt


AI.IS\VER. The court shall take judicial notice of the following: All cour'ts of justiee are bound to take judicial . (ul - Teryitotial ertant - of the jurisdiction exercised notice of the territorial extent by the gove-rnment the larvs of which they administer and o{ the extent and bounrlai.ics of thc temitory u.der rvhich they themselves can exercise jurisdiction.n
Gtnerql histot'11. Courts haye always and without exception taken . (bi cognizance judicial - proof rvithout of those great historical events which have affected the destiny of our nation or of othel nations. 'Ihe grounds of their notice ale tho common knowledge and open fame of such lvents.e courhs take j-udicial notice of the World lMar,lr) ihe countries involvetl therein,rr 16" distrtrbances in btt-siness, industrial and financial affairs during and foliowing said.u'ar';l: the Civii War betlveen thestates of the Union and its causes;t.r the itrsurrection against the United States in the Philippines and the date of its. inception.r'r It has been held that judicial r.rotice-may be taken of the c'xistence-and purpose of the Makapili organization as matiers of public nctoriet5' and interest and as part of conternporary history,ro (c) I'otttts oi goaernntent of statet. The rule must be taken with the qualification that it relates only to such governments as have been reeognizecl by- the home governmentlri The recognition of a for:eign gqover.nment is a political rather than a judicial matter and thelejlore couits follolv the determination of the executive departrnent of the forum.r? (d) SyrnboLs of natioualitd. In conformity to the law of nations all - governmerrt has recog:riz,r:d the eoults in a governnrent, rvhere that existence qf a f<rleign nation, but not in the absence of such recognition, u'ill take cognizauce of the flag and gleat sell of that nation or its plovinces,rs (e) Luw ol nations. It is elenrentary that eourts notice larvs - of the dominant powers of the earth thosc *'hich regulate the relations the law of nations. While foreign municipal larvs must be proved as faets, -those rules which by con'lmoll consent of mankind have been acquiesced in as larv stand upon an entirely differcnt footing,rs It is rvell-settled that foreign iarvs do not prove themselves .in our jurisdiction and our coults are not authorized to take judicial notice of them, Like any other fact, they must be alleged and proved.2o It must be stressed, horvever, that foreign statute accepted by the Bovernr urent is subject to judicial notice.:] (f) Adniralty cout'ts und. their sttel.s. No proof neetl be given of the

t Allen vs. State, (Aliz.) 130 P. 1114. s 20 Am. Jur. 81. $ I Jones on Evidence, Sec. 435. r',U.S. vs. Flamburg-Amerikanishe, 239 U.S. 4{i6; i3ti S.Ct. 212. rr Scheffners vs. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 909 lll. A. 81. r2Canrpaignie de Corn. vs. Hanrbnrg-Amcrika, 36 Phil. li00; ln re ,Iustice Op. 201 lfas. 603, 122 N.E. ?C3; Ltrzon Brokerage Clo. vs. Luzon Labor Union, G.R. Cuvler vs. Fer'ril, 6 Fed. Cascs No. 3523. t1tl.S. vs. Tubig, 3 Phil. 244. t; People vs. r\litagtag, G.R. No. L-924, A.rigusu 30, 194?. t6 1 Jones on Evidcnce. p. 514. t? Jones vs. U,S,, 13? U.q. 9{t!, 11 Sun (lt. 8(ii 1.,1nri'.rrlrill rs. Ilernantlcz. 168 U.S, 250, 18 Sup. Ct. 83. rb 31 c.J.s. 6;J6. r1i H;lton v-". (iuyot, 1i0 Lr.S, 1111, 40 L, ed. tll;, 1.6 S,Ct. 13it. .r" The Collcctor of Internal Iievenue vs. Irisher,, et tr1., G.R. )ir.r. I"-1162; li'islrer, ct al. vs. The Collcctot of Internai Rr:venue. et a., 1 SCRA 9;l; Yao Kee, et al. v:r" Sy-(ionzales, et el., (i.R. Nc. L-55960, i'r-ovenrber 4, 1t188 I liuemer ys. H!x,54 f'hj1. 610; Adong vs. (llilong, "1:i Plril. 4il; Sjn:lh vs. R,pub1ic, il O"G. 5l?2. 1r Itt,public vs. (iirzrnzon, ti1 SCITA i:i60,

No. L-1?085, October 31,





SDC. 1, RULN 129

of foreign rnaritime and admiralty courts. By cotnuloli conscttt and of a eourt of admiralty has been corlsidexed as sufficiently authenticatinF its records.::: The court (S) Political constittttion antl historlJ of th,c Philip1tines.. - saat of the takes-'jutlicial rxrtice of the fact that on Februaly 5, 1945, thegovernment of the so-called Philippine Repubiic had been ttansfen:erl to the -eity of Baguio, and that the commander-in-cheif of the Japanese Imperial forces had iikei.'ise left the cii,y e1 Manila and that the Japanese Imperral
general usage; the seal

forces no longer had effective coirtrol ovel the City of Manila and ihe Province of Rizal, as they had, been retreating to the mountains, pursued by- the United States Army arid the Philippine Guerrilla forces, and, consequently, wrth the loss of the effective control over the City of Manila and the Province of Rizal' thc authority of the enenry forces of occupation had ipso facto ceased.-T (h) fu[atters relatittg to the legi^';latiuc deTturtment. - Co^urts are bound C-ongress begins to taiie judicial notice, 4J a matter of la.,'r', of the dates rvhen its session; the number, functions and plivilegrs of its members. uttd resc,tuilons of public charlcter passed by the legislature mtlst also btr ioint"loJo"

judicially known.i'4 (i) Mutters,tin.g to the anectttiae de7>artment. - Judicial_notice nrust of-the Government; be taken of the organization of the Executive Department Presi{ent, his porverr-s its principal offioers elected or appointed, such as the and'4utie^s;:::, the vice-President and cabinet officers; zti hcads of Rureaus;':? rvho is or ! at any time the chief Executive of the Philippines;:s the l)epa-rt-

ment Secretaries, juch officers as the Attorney-General;::rl and. -the In*'ular Courts nray take judicial notice of the provincial officers within their jurisdiction,sr of- the municipal officers of a city or torvn therein,$: 15 well as o{ their signaturss.:l3 The Suprenre Cour:t iras (j) Ma,tterc relating to the cou|ts of irt::tice. -its - in connection with tho record in a previous case takeri" judicial notice of conduci of the litiganb or witness on a similar matter.s{ But the Suplcme' courb does not taiie judicial notice of procecrlings in the various cour"ts ot justice in the PhilipPinss.{tr' The lach of jurisdiction appearing: upon the face of lhe record, tho Supreme Court is bould to take notice thereof, and nray heaf ttrgutnents upon the question, although no objection to the want of jurisdiclion was raisecl in the court belorv.sti

whether the courts may iake juclicial notice of the legislativa jou,rnals, it is rvellsettled in the United Strt." that such journals may be noliced by the courts in bill becarne a larv or not. (Strrte deterrnining the question rvhether a particulal ^The result is that the larv and the adjudicatcd ex rel. Herion vs. Smith,44 Ohio 48). cases make it our duty to take judicial notice of the tegislative journals. of the

Comrs., 105 Me. 184. While there are no adjudicated cases in this jurisdiction upon the exact question

.r2Thompson vs. Stewart, S Conn. 1?1,8 Am. Dec. 108; Yeaton vs. Fry, 5 cr.rnch (U.S.) 335, 3 L. Ed. 117; and others' ri Sameth vs. Director of Prisons, 76 Phil. 613. s4McCarver vs. Herzberg, 120 Ala. 523,25 S.3; Kingman vs. Penobscot Coulltly

special session of the Philippine .2 Ligislature of 1914. U.-S. a-s. Pons,34 Pllil' 7)9. e5 Canal Zone vs. Mena, Canal Zone 170' :'a Perovich vs. Perry, 167 Feb. 78. -Stet* 27 Backus Portable Fieater Co. vs. Simtnons, 2 App. (D'C') 220. 28Moon vs. Harrison,48 Phil.27. m State vs. Board of State Canvassers, 32 Mont. 13' 79' p. 4C2. so Daily vs. State, 171 Ind. 646. erlongshore vs. State, ?6 S. 33: Wcbb vs' Iielsey,66 Ark. 1E0,49 S'W.819. 32 Himmelnran vs, Hoadley, 44 Cll, 213. 3s Ryan vs. Young, 14? Ala. 669' Hirnmelman vs' Hoadley, supra. The- judicial notice of the proclamations was not an error on the part- of the court becir:se Executive Proclamations are among the matters rvithin jrrdicial notice under Section 1, Rule L29 of. the Rules of Court. Illtuticipality of 7'uctrt'ottg ts.

Abragan,22 SCRA 518. 3a Dizon vs. Pineda, G.R. No. L-346?9. 3i) Mortera and Eceiza vs. lvest of scotbn,l Insurancc office, 36 Phil. 36 Government vs. American Suretl' Co', 11 Phil. 20:i.






As a general r.ulc, courts are not authorized to take_ judicial knowledge in the adjudication of cases of tfr.i conlents of the reeord of other cases, o*"{i""'before them, even though the trial judge in fact knows o-r rememu-ers thereof,'li or even when said other cases have bcen heard or are [tr" cases may "orit""tr pending in the same court and notwithstanding tle fact that.b;oth iuuu ti"" heard or are really pending before the same judge.3s Ho'ever, of convenience to all -parbies, i" itt" absenee of objection ahd- as a matter a court rnay properll. tren! all or any par.t- of ihe origir-ral record of a case when iif.a i" its- ai'chives- as into recoril of a case pending before it, it for t}te i;;ih t-h" k"o*lndg" of the opposing party, reference is made to pri.p"-" fv na*e i"a number or: itt some other manner by rvhich it is sufficiently 'des,ig'nate,d, or when the originnl record of the forrner ca-se or any part of direction at ths it ii' actually withdrawn from the archives Fy. ttre court's conse.rt of the parties an<l admitted as a part of the recordr "uqouri-o"_'*ittr of the case then In somc instances also, courts have taken judicial notice of prcceedings of-their close connectiou with the matter in controin orheri causes, because interwoven, or so clearly ;;".tF U"*"rL ,;there may be cqses so judicial - closely notice in one suit or the intei.ciependent, as to invoki" a rile of o"o"""ain*. in another suit.a|Ihe court may properly resort to an inspection in other case.s where the interests of the public in ascertaining ii-it* is """i"ai aie of paramount importance, as also eases where the cnurtqr irru- i"oitr .i"tiirs t .1"t""-ii-te what is a- reasonable cxcrcise of its discretion,+3, *tt.itt& the present proceetling is a moot one'13 or' 'lvhether or not a plcvious ruling is applicablc in the c:rse under* consideration.aa (k) ol nature. Judicial knorvledge is taken of the.familiar and - and of the existence of facts wh.ich must have uuqgiion".l tar* of nature the ebb atrd h;;;;;tA--;;"otai"g to the constant course of nature, such as ii;,1y-;i the tides: tire alternation of day and night, th-e rcturn of the respective *".ro16 rvith the concomitartts of heat and cold' and the valying changes in year in certain il;;;;l o".i "ng"t"l;te life, and that in certain seasons of the is a heavl: rain{all. Thc tendency of ripc frui:; to delay and io"uiiti"u there -trand, ttre iratural law which enables frost to arrest decay in ." iir""ttr"o" v"guiutrie tissues *-ill be noticed by t_he cou-r!s. - The courts knolv ""i*"frio onn ft ordinary or normal health ca1 freeze his feet, rvhen reasoniftui thirty-two degre-es i6[' .lua. uniess the ti.mperature falls considerably belorv l;-lir";-h;11.; ioai"i"t knorvledge is also taken of the phenomeuon oI t.he tides t"";ti";.d in official hydrographic reports and the hours of its- occurrencela$ th; tiil when the moon liies-or seti on a particular day;+? 11to time when
31 C.J.S. 023-624. 3 Mun. Council vs. Colegio de San Jose, ct al., G'R' No' L'45460' U.S. vs. Claveria. 29 Phil. 527. a court is not authotized to In-ttre atijuaicatiori oi u .or" pentling before it, 'another case even tf :3i1 .",i5 of th"-"o"o"d of contents tioticJ ot lrre t"x"-ioai.lui judge. Exceptions: (1) rvhen in the absence of obiectlon" ;; fi";d by the sanre -tlie oipposing party, said' other case is clearly rgi.erre$ to,i1 ;tth ;t; kno'rvledge of the a pending action-and adoptcd or read into the record of the latter; (2) when from the o"i'Si;"i-i".""d-of tftu other casc or any part of it is actdally withdrarvn ol-itr" coo"t'r dir.iutiotr, or at tihe'request, or with the-consent of the-parfies. ilii;; ot as part ? tfr" record of the lgnhing case. Tctlnrcna tts. Coutt ua*itt"A unA 19e1 of Si.snificant Szro^e21 L. Bettipiyo, A. Justice Sru dsii. hre";t;:"i-sd-S-CA.'E Deqsions P, 7. ---'A-"; ou. Erilclence, judicial notice, in !n9 {j1son""ut .utu'Jou"t" are not authorized to take pen{ing |efore the:m of the contents of other cass, even wLlen dicafion oi nohvithstandiing "u*." iri[d or a"e pending in the same court, and ;;;h-;;.; r,""r-n6"" pending before the actually are or ttuuJU""tt-iried both fact that ihe "ut*-tnoy 549. 1.4 SCRA juclge. et aI., lus' Anoyo, Prieto same atl Figueras vs' Sennno, 52 Phil. 28. 41 31 C.J.S. 623-621. 42 lbid. +a Brisol vs. Fischel, 81 Mo. A. 367' 'rr State vs. Savage, 195 Tex. 467, 471,151 S'W' 630'

38 3e


r7 iVlunihorverr

Tan Ch'ong Sian vs' Inchausti



& Co., 22 Phil' vs. St:rte. 55 l\fr" 11, 39 Am. ReIr.






the sun rises or sets on a certain day, the abscnce or duration of twilght, the presence or absence of daylight and the natural conditions oJ visibility.l8 But the court rvill decline to know judicially the operations of such laws of nature as may be neutralized or offset by others and consequently are variable in their action; and it will not take such notice where the existence of a minor law or nature or its operation in a particular instance is disputed. lVhile certain facts of physieal geography are judicially noticed, variation of climate, or meteorological conditions in particular places at particular times

wiil judicially notice the things properly to an almanac.- The courts take judieial notice of the calendar and of the periods within the calendar. They take judicial notice of the computation of time, the subdivision of the year into nonths, rveeks, and days, the days of the week, the order of sueceeding days of the week, the nu-mb-er of dayi in a month, the ooincidence of days of the rryeek rvith days of the month, and of the days of the month with those of the year. Likewise, courts judicially notice the day of the week on whieh any partieular clate has fallen, although it has been held that this rule will not be extended so as to cover an unieasonable time in the past. The subdivision of the day into hours and ;' their ordel of succession are also judicially (m) Geographicgl &iuisions. Judicial notice has been taken of the fact municipalities, torvnship.s ard o that'the Philippines is divided into'provinces, barrios; that certain cities are divided into lots, blocks and strcets;5t 966

cannot be judiciallY known'lu (l) Meagute ol time. Courts

boundaries of each political subdivision as prescribed by statute, such as those of the City of Manila and provinces; that known places are or are not within certain boundaries, as for instanco, that a eertain municipality is within a certain province;s2 that Sacristia Street is within the City of Manila;53 that a certain place opposite to l\fagallanes landing is within the City of Manila;rl that San Juan Heights is a suburb of the City of Manila and u'ithin the zone over which the Cour! of First Instance of Manils has jurisdietion;;; ,nU that a certain barrio is within a certain municipality.r'rl

A court may take Sec. 2. Judicial notice, ulten, disct'etionarE. judicial notice of matters which are of public knowledge, or are capable of unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known to iuilges because of their judicial functions.
1. Matters subject to discretionary judicial notice. 2. Personal knowledge of judse not judicial knowledge of coutt. 3. Matters of judicial cognizance need not be actually known to judges' 4. Power to take judicial notice must be exercised with caution. What facts are subiect to dtsct'etionary iudicial QUESTION 1. - of each. noti,ce? Giae eramples ANSWER. A court may take judicial notice of the following: (a) Mattera of pttblic knotuledge. The matter of which a court r'l'ill - common and general knorvledge. In take judicial notice must be a subject of other words, judicial knowledge of facts is measured by general knowledgp of the same facts. A fact is said to be generally recognized or known when its existence or operaticn is accepted by the public without qualification or

contention, The test is whether sufficient notoriety attaches to the fact involved as to make it proper to assume its existence without proof. Thus, the courts may take judicial notice of the existence and locetion rvithin the territory over De Sarosola v-". Yubiao Sontua, 4? Phil.
23 C.J.S.
365. 140-141.


51 5:l

tI.S. vs. Gellegos. 37 Phil. 289. Marzon vs. Udtujan, 20 Phil. 232, 53 lI.S. vs. Chua Mo, 23 Phil. 233. .'r tI.S. vs. Lim Soon, 34 Phil. 668' n; People vs. Ponferrada, et al., 54 Phil. io Pcople vs. DeI Prado, 58 Phil' 637.

iit c.J.s. 699-7c0.


sDc. 2, nuLE



and- yet, within the limits of any country ttre navisubiriiv-oi"i't""g" be generallv.known. The courts-may, ttere-to.e-i"ur."-jriai"iul knowl"i*i :yght,Jo edg:e thereof, as a matter of general knowledge.l cylybte of unquestiotto,ble clem,oltstration. _ More realistieally, -,^ JPl^ Y:rt":! he,r,e al imp-ortant extension of iudicial notice to the new field y_e,nuJu 6t' facts "capable of sulh instant and unque-stionable aor*".t""iln,' ir a"ri""o, t,20 Am..Jur.49; Banatao vs. Dobbay and Tuliao, gg phil. 6f2. . ..r'he courts may take judicial notic.e of the exisience and location rvithin thc territory over whieh they i.xercise j-urisdiction taL"s, ana tn"i" relation to provincial bcu-ndaries: oi th" "r il.t "1";* r;; -Th; high_ ways of commerce and other notorious facts "u"ie"bitiwof-;i;;*;;;o,rstituting cbncerni"g tt," t;;il,";ii;; ".na of "u"r;: ["orvn strearlsl arrd r*.r ,genera.l \1ow].edge rveakens us *" puri io smaller vet, within the limits of any country -t,he navigability ;]-"'b;d-;i"er ought io--il,e generally Known. The r'ne co-ur-ts Ftelrauy k-nown. couits nay, may,- theref thereforeatake judicial knorvledg.e thereof, as a matter of general knowledge. Ed.nahrc as. bobbiu" i;d i"i;;,' ;s 'I;hii. ois.-' -" Judicial notice mav-be taken of the fact that reai prop"rtiu" J"! usually 4eclaretl for taxation Duroo"o=-bv purposes lry ttr" thp ^rr,.o*-+il.-^r L-t, owners thereof *,r*r. -A-^^^^r --^r.-^ with -h air assessed vatuo -^^--,r*u.ti Giorv their actual malket vanie. De Ia Crua-il ii."lzii:n, fii'iin

which they. exercise jurisdiction of great rivers and lakes, and their relation to provrncial boundaries; of the navigability of streams, constituting tristwavs oi commerce and other notorious facts concerning the same. ftE piesumllion of general knowledge weakens as we pass to srialier;J-i;."-k;orirr streams;

IO, 195u,

affected.the Parilippine National Construction Co"porrtio" it-l'o*"nt""nt controlledcorporation. There was-a,change of management. pltilippine' Consttitctiit Cot'poration us. Fener-Coleja, i67 SCRA'gg4, Court took- judicial uotice of the fact that titles of royalty or -.The-Suprene uobility have been maintain-ed'and appear to be accorded some-vato" .-oi,! io-" members of certain cultural groups in our society. ai ll" ,ame time, iiti"" of royalty and nobilitlare not_generglly recognized or act<nowte<te'"a so6iattv i" tt,e national community. Bu.lletin. Pubishing eorpiratiott t,s. Judge Niel, toi sin|" s-ii. pgr, or its effects, or other factors which could not have been foreseen or . by.a party. fo g contract, such as uncertain conditions of peace and order |,Ytd:d then prevailing which the court mty !4e judicial notice of, are decreed sufticient eauses that could justify the nonfulfillmeni of a contract 'and- exemnt the nartv lrom_responsibility. Philippine National Bank as. cottt of Appeals, si sCn,A'isi. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that tr,ntry"u.plbyeei afflicted wilh

.judicial -notice that the Veterans Bank is locatetl on Bonifacio Drive is !"k" heavily travelled especiqlly during the day._ such a site is not a likely place to stage a hijack. Peope w. Olitserio, ei- al., lzti SCEA zz. It is a matter of common knowledge and experience about common carriers like trains and buses that before reachin{ a station^or-fl"g$tih"y slow do*n-a-nd the conductor announces the name of t-he place. lf is -ir.o -" matter of common experiencre that as the train or bus slacke-ns its speed,-som"' usually proceed to the nearest exit, ready to disem'barlc as lfre f..."rg"". stand frain o-i bos -an-d to a fu.ll stop. This is especially-tfue of-a train U".u"r"-p-osr"ttgu., feet-thaiii "o*el the train resumes its run- befora they are able to dis;niba;k-,-;h;; is rvay to stop it as ? bqs may be stopped. its. peopla, ui oi., iii-idni-oar. Th-. Supreme Court took judicial notice that financial problem is a factor that . beset the s_ugar indust.y; thit there is crisis in ah; ;d;-lndustry. ulioio- *. Leogarclo, Jr., 1t*p SCRA 9S6. T.he goyr!.may ta-ke judicial notice of the fact that rape may be committed even in-vicinities or piaces rvhere- people conglomerate such a's pu"lir, or tfre-roaal sides. There have been reported tasls of iape committed it"---i""Ji, Rizal Park, or even within school premises r*rere-peqn_1" uuo""a.-'Fi".or;;i.-diii'iril) "iel,[--rt lsl SCRA 569, Sec olso peopla- os. Sison, tes'SCEa-soi;.'-" . This Court takes juCi-cial notice of the fact that in nrost cases, an afficlavit is not prepared by the affiant himself, but by attolher *fto ur.*-tis own lanEuaqe rn writinE the affiant's statements. Omissions and misunderstandings by the iritEr { are Jlot infreq'.ent,pa$!cql91l.y rrrrder-circumstance of stress and impiiienle. 1p".pi" vs. Reyasaga, 54 SCRA 850.t people os. Ramos, 15g SCRA Ai6.'' The judicial Supreme Court-took notice general of ihe increase in rentals of real.cstate espeeialiy of busineis estabtjshments. Coiniiai, E;"1;i: i;;.';;.- C"";i oj Appeals, 168 SCRA IAr. -- Thg Supreme Court_may tate judicial notice that the politieal upheaval of 1gE6 , . I: whrch






of an intellig:ent

that uo party would think of imposing a falsity on the tribunal in the face adversary."2 or "capable of immediate and accurate denronstration by resort to easily accessible sources oi indisputable acculaey.":r 36 variously stated.< In this rsalm fall most of the facts, theories, and conclusions lvhich have. come to be established and accepted by the specialists in the areas of natural scienee,5 natr'.ral phengmena,{i chronology,? teclhnologt-i geography,o statistical factsro and other fields of professional and scientific

and 25 of the Spanish Civil Code, among other Spanish legislation, Fiiipinos are eligible to Spanish citizenship in Spain. Article 1.? provides that foreigrrers who have obtained a certificate of naturalization and those who have not

(c) lJlattqrs ough,t to bc known to judges because of tl*ir julictctl ftneIn a case applicant introduced a ccrtificate signed by the Consul - of Spain in the Philippinres, stating that in accordance lvith articles 1? General

obtained such ceriificate but have acqr.rired domicile in any town of the Monarchy are Spaniards. It was held that as the Spanish Civil Code has been and still is "the basic corle in force in the Philippines," :rrticles 17, et s.eq., ihei'eof may be regarded as matters hnorvn to judges of the Philippines

'I'TB, specially at its iucipient or early stage, persist in u'orking despite their ailment, by rea-"on of theii sheer determination to continue earrling a living for tlremselves and thcir families (Romero vs. WCC,7? SCRA 482,489 [19?7]). f)ct'ez tfs. Wot'kmcn's Cotnpensatiott Aomtnission, 9! SCBA g2S. The obsbrvation of the trial court as to the existence of gang r.ivalries is a matter of judicial notice. In fact, aside from the four killings involved in ihis case, v'hich were perpetratcd at about eig:ht-forty-five in the morning of Good !.riday, April 9, 1971 three other incidents took place in succession on that same

morning, Peopl.e t,s, Garata, et al., 96 SCRA 497. ! I \Yigmore on Evidence, 548. sModel Code of Evidence, Rule 802(c) (1942), a See also In re Malcorn, 129 F. 2d 529, 533 (C.C.P.A. 1942); Nichols vs. Nichols, l?6 Conn.614, l3 A.2d 69L,595 (1940); State vs. Schriber, 185 Ore. 615' 205 P. 2d. r49 (1949). 5 See, e.g., Electric Storage Battery Co. r's. Shimadzu, 123 F. 2d 890 (3rd Cir. 1941) (that heated oxygen will combine with lcad to form lead oxide); Russo vs. Swift & Co., 136 Neb.406,286 N.W.291 (1939) (nature and origin of disease of echinococcosis); State vs. Schriber, 185 Ore. 615, 205 P. 2d 149 (1949) (that Bang's disease is an infectious and contagious disease of cattle). See Note, Judicial Notice of lledical Facts, 36 Mich. L. Rev. 610 (1938). See also Buhrkhul vs. F.T. O'Dell Constr. Co.,232 I\{o. App. 967,95 S.W. 2d 843 (1936), where the court takes judicial notice that a barn taller than other buildings on an isolated farm rvas a place of special danger from lightning. Disagreements as to rvhether particular scientific questions are within the field of judicial knolvledge are, naturally, not uncommon. See, e.g., Universal Granite Quarries Co. vs. Industrial Comnr'n., 224 i4'is. 680,272 N.W. 863 (1937), and Smith vs. Harbison-Walker Retractories Co.,340 Mo.389, 100 S.W.2d 909 (1936) (that some dust causes lung trouble); In re Svrain's Will, 158 Misc. 17, 285 N.Y. Supp. 234 (Surr. Ct. 1936), and Commonrvealth vs. English, L23 Pa, Super 161, 186 Atl. 298 (1936) (that blood-grouping tests are relevant on question of paternity). eMcAffee vs. United States, 111 F.2d 199 (D.C. Cir. 1940) (maximum snd minimum temperatures in District of Cclumbia on certain date); Statc vs, Perkins, 342 Mo.560, 116 S.W. 2d 80 (1935) (time of sunrise cn particular morning). 7 State vs. Van Ness, 109 Vt. 392, 199 Atl. 754, lL7 A.L.R. 415 (1933) (days of week on rvhich certain dates fell). 8\Merk vs. Patker,219 U.S. 130,132 (1919) (court by reference to encyclopedia and other authorities could take notice that long before present patent was issued the use of horsehair mats in presses for the extraction of oil p'as rvell known in the art). 3 See, e.9., Swarzwald vs. Cooley, 39 Cai. App. 2d 306, 103 P. 2d 580 (1910) (meaning of phrase, "ordinary high tide," in the vicinity of Laguna Beach). The court may take judicial notice of the fact that on the night of a certain

full. People as. Villanueoa, 161 SCRA 511. loGroves vs. Boald of Comm'rs.,209 Ind.371, 199 N.E. 137 (1936) (population of cities and torvns of state shorvn by federal census); Cox vs. Polson Logging Co., 18 Wash. 2d 49, 138 P. 2d 169 (1943) (trial judge may inform jury of life expectancy from mortality tables rvithout proof ) ; Dec. Deg. Evidence, 12.
date, the rnoon lvas almost





by reason of their judicial fuuctions.-1nd pa1'be ju-dieially reeognized by them riithout the introduction of proof. (Sec. 5, Rule 123). llloreover, in a number th9 of decisions mere authentication of the Chinese Naturalization Law by Ctri""ri Colsuiate General of Manila has been held to be competent ploof of that law. (Yap vs. Solicitnr: General, 81 Phil. 4681.1r Is tha personnl ,t;n,s'u:lctlgc of tlLe iuJgc a itt'cli'cinl QUESTION 2. knowlectge of the court?
Pardo vs. Republic, 85 Phil. 232. coult was fully justified in relying on its record in order to deterntine'ifr[ auiu on ivhich petiti"onirs' counsel received op]a 9! ,the -decision. Matters shall be lo knourir to judges because of.the^r judieial-functions *lii"ft-""eht-to jiiai"i"tiy-""cogaize{ by the c6urd withogt the introduction -of proof (Section- 6'


n"i8r oi-coit"tl. Facts rvhich are ascertainable from the record of a iil;-iti, to knorv by *uit p",i..utting are atttong thosc matters rvhieh judges- are supposed take judiciai ;;;;"';i-ih.i"-;"Ai.iuL functions. In a case on -irial the court.rvill (People vs. noiice of its records and of the facts which the record establishes lli,iiLti, i.n. N".-i-ao-rizi (unpuulished). De los Angeles cts. Ilott. Cabahug, et a'1., 10ti Pluil. 839. Appellant's first contention is besed on the assumptiotr. that the cr'iminal aclion is in the 'ca"e wa= comnrenced by the filing of an inforrnation. That assumption for rap-e. ;;;G.-iis staiecl above, the victim and-her mother filed the complaint. is n su{fifir.V-.ig;"4 the comptaiirt rvhich *'as sworn to before the fiscal. 'l'hat 4, with Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code and Section Ilule 110 "i"ni "-"ilpji"nee Rriles of Court. That complaint is a part of the record rvhich t"as elcvated ot' tlu been plesented in. evidence but even to if,e Coott of !-irst Instance. Ii should havl judicial notiee. l'cople lus- 'l'urn'pxts, ofturaed in evitlencc, it is a rnatter of ii 88 sclla 217. "i;; -- "oi p;;t office practice of rvhich the Court of First Instance took judlcial notiee 129). is not covered b1' siry of the specific instances cited abore (Section 1, -Rule or are i("itfr"" can it be ctassified unrier "matters rvhich are of public kno-wledge, tlemonstration, or ought to ie. knorvn kr judges because of o] "rpifrf" juoiciai-i.i""iio"i." ""qu"itionable For a rnatter to be tai<en judicial n_oiice,of the court of law, ;6ill" rn'ords, judieial it;*-t-b"-; subject of cornmon and general knoivledge. In facts. -other of the same genelal iinowledge b1' 'A' fact is said rrotice of fp.cts is *uu*"",} is accepted by i"-U" g"""*"fiy-recognized o" L,o*r when its existence or operation ifr.,-pu[fi" ivliftoot qiialification or contention. test is rvhether tha fact involved -.J knbwn a." to *rlie it proper to assume its existence rvithout proof. i. "oJo"iously 1'fr"-iu.t that ir Ueliei is not rrniversai, licwever, is not contl:olling-for very arc ;;fio1n til;-anv [eilet is accepted by everyone. It is enoggh that the matters familiar with the lui"ifi."iv knorin to ifte majority oi *otr[.it d or those prsons Jur.'49-50;.-I\[artin,-Rules. of.Court 17,' l-"1"_i9 ;;.i];;t; *utt"" i" q"u,-.tio""<20-Am. rnatter may F persona.lly the iudge and yet llot ijaitio"l-. Irurthermoie, a -i<nov.rledge and vice versa, a matter may. not be^ fr"- r-"iittur of jutliciai known to an individual iudge, and neverthelcss be a ploper subJect oI Judiclal-{ cognizance. -----1.[u . post office pracfice herein involved is not tcsted by the-aforestated considerations, a i"op"r rr.toai"i" 6i-Jriaiclai notice. .IVlo,reover, the-certification issued by lhe questioned .motion ;;;;'p;tf-;;rtu" oi tlie riost office rvhere the letter containing. thethat the said-post fo"".it""rio" of time was posted, is a very clear manifestation doctrine of judicial oiii* p"u"ti.e is not of'unqriestio"Lble demonstration. Indeed, the noticl'rests on the wisaoin'atta discretion of the courts. The porver to take judieial the courts with caution; care must be taken that the ;;i;; i; i; l" **1"4.r.4 by -and every reasonable doubt upon-the ^subject s^hould be requisite notoriety exists; pri,mptty r.esolved i1 the iregative (i1 C.J.S. 522; Martin, Rules of Court 38, Second
Court- of First Instance of It is therefore manifest fror:r the foregoing that the a p:rlpable error amounting to a g'rave abuse of discretion in over the uncontroverted ;.ivid'";- 1i;o "iGda'foit offi""-practice aforementioncd of oi ttu-pottl*astel earlier referred to. That being so' the ilismi:sal It should have acted on petitroner's ""Jtiii?"tio" ;;iil;;;i---ppeu,t tti"".fore lacks factual basis. iifth motion for extension of time which we find to have been filed on time. Repu'blic al th.e Plilippines as, Cotn't of ATtpeals, 107 SCRA 504' The court cannot be expected to take judieial notice of the ne'w addres-" of a larvyer rvho has moved or io ascertain on its orvn rvhether ol not the ccunsel oi recJrd has been changed and rvho the nerv counsel could possibly be or rvhere he

gulacan eommitterl






ANsltr'nli. -_ Tlre mer"e tlelsonrl litrorvledgc of the judge is not the judicial knowledge ril tlie cr.irn't; judicial cogniztnce is tahen only of those matters whiclt iri'*i "tilmmonl.ii" linou'n. Tltus, the individu:rl and extritjudir:i:rl ftnowlediie of the jurlgr: tliat some of the p:rrties are dead, or that lhe defendant is lr resit-ierit of lnother state cloes not dispense with proof of those facts ancl cltrnot be rcs+i'ted to for the purpose of suirplementing tlre record.l:

Is i.t esscntittl tlmt rtuttt'.r's of iudicial cognizancc QUESTIOT\ 3. - tltc iucltle? be actua,llpl knattn. ttt ANSWBR. __ It is not essential tliat rn:rtters of judicial cognizance l-re ac:tually ]inown to the jutlge. If lbe subject is lrroper for judicirl knowledge, tfie judgt: ur:ry, 1L his ciiscretion, infolm himself in any way which rrury seern lrcst to hirn, ttncl :rct accordingly.r;l Thus, where the. inforrnation ch:lrges the etnbezzlement of a certain sum of money ia gold G{il'Fel}cv of t}re United States it is not birrl for not alleging t}re ccluivalent ,,f,rJue iri pesetas, and the courts will take judicial notice of the equivalent i1 t[e l1tte1 coin for tlre purpose of fixilg the And if the lrlrties refitse to prt"rlttr.'e er,-icience of the relative value of Mexican and i'Sililipinc culrency, l.he cout't trlry considei' cxecutive ordel.s fixing the v:ilue of the sittne.16 Hoto should, tlte Ttower ta tal;e iudieial notiee be QUESTION 4. t rt The doctrine of judicial notice rests on the wisdom ANSWITR. - the courbs. The powel to tlke judicial notice is to be :rnd discretion of exercised by courts rvith caution; cale must be taken that the requiqite rrotoriety eiists; and every reasona|le doubt upon the subject should be promptly resolved iu the negative.l$
During the trial" Sec. 3. Jud,iciat notice, uh,en lt'earing necessary. party, tllsY announce of a on request or initiatil'e, court, on its own -the probably resitles or holcls office. It is logical to assume that processes mailed to addreised to t]reir larvl'er at the Willianr Lines i"tltiotir Chiorrgbian and his ffroup, -bhe absence of a notice of change of address or Building 1'ere in fact received, in counsel.- Atty. Drapiza should'have observed the legal fornrally required before a counsel ofl record may be considered relieved of his responsibility as suoh counsel on
account of

tvithdrarvai. On their part, the petit;oners themseives should have informed the eourt of the withdlawal of tireir'coun..el after the several reminders they made to hirn anent his tvithdrarval had ailegedly beetr ignored. Lce tts. Hontillo, Jr., !61

for rape rvas filed in the municipal court of Kiamba on July 23, 1969. It rvas docketed as criminal case No. 999. It is page 4 of the recoid elevated by the nrunicipal judge to the Cou,rt of First Instance. *should it have been marked as an exhibit by the plosecution. However, the fiscal's rallure to do so did not nrean that the trial courl did not acquire jurisdiction over the case. The cornplaint, is a ntatter of judicial notice. People ts. Satellano, 57 If the complaint in a case t'hich cannot be prosecuted de o/icio (e.9., rape, abduction, elc.) is forrvalded tt: the trial court as part of the records of the preliminary investigalion of lhe ca.:e, the court can take judicial notice of the same without thr. nccessit,j; of its folntl intlod'-rcbion :rs evldence fol lhe plosecution' People z*s. SitnpanElco, ltji .SCn,1 -'-'i. .1. t-: Wheelel vs. Webster', D. Smith (i{.i:'") 1; State vs. Edrvalds, 19 Mo. 6?4; lfayor', etc. of Nerv Orlea.ns vs. Ripley, 5 La. 121, 25 Am. Dec. 175. 1:] Hoyb v-*. Russel, 11; Il.S. 401' 2.Cl L. ecl. 014, 6 S. Ci. 881. I t I .S. vs. harcl.::', :i l."l;1. 2:lii. 1: (ias1rirr v.-. JIullt: :. :, lr,:l' lt?.
'i,::i1 {:.J.!; itl.l.
SCRA 390.

SCRA 600. Zosimo Jenilla's verified complaint





its intention to take iudicial notice of any matt,er and allorv the parties

to be heard thereon. After the trial, and before iudgment or on appeal, the proper court, on its own initiative or on request of a party' lnay tahe judicial notice of any matter and allorv the parties to be heard thereon if such matter is decisive of a material issue in the case. 1. Purpose of hearing. 2. When judicial notice may be taken. 3. Judiciai notice taken during trial distinguished fron, that taken after trinl but before judgment or on aPeal. 4. Determination of facts subjeet of .iudicial notice. What is the p'urpose of n hearing? QUESTION t. .i\ ltearing: may be necessrry, not for the presentation ANSWER. of evidence, but- to afford the parties leasonalrle opportutrity to plesent information relevant to the propriety of taking such jgdiciul notice or to tlre tenor of the mattel to be noticed. (See Rule 804 of tire i\{odei Code



firrding procedure.s At u:lmt sttLge may the: rourt tulte irulir:ial notice QUESTION 2. oi u faet? Judicial notic:e of il fact ma_'l be taken (&) during trial, ANSWER. - before jttclgnrent, or (c) zq)peal. In all instances, the (b) after trial and Court may act on its own initiative or on request of a partl'.3 /QUESTION 3. Distingui,sh iu,rlicial noti.ce taken dut"tng trial, f''om. trial but before iui,gment, or on artpeal' taken after iudicial notice judicral notice taken A distinction is made between ANSWER. judgment or on appealbefore rluring trial and that taken aftel trial but to take judicial intention its announce may Court Durin? the trial, the rnatter and may hear the parties thereon.e For instance, rrotice-'of anu -witness stzltes: 'iI came home about the time of sunset. I in a trial, a was September l'r. I know it was a weekend." The Court may believe it announce its intention to take iudicial notice that September 5 is a Sunday and that sunset was 6:40 p.m., aud give the parties an opportunity to be heard on the matter. , After the trial, but before judgrnent or on appeal, the court may toke juclicial notice of any matter and allow the par:ties to be heard thereon if such nratter is rlecisi,ac of a matet'ial issu.e in thc case.6 For instance, in a suit on a promissory note the plaintiff recovered judgment i1 the iower coult. After the appeal w1s taken, the appellate court <liscovered that the clate of the note was a Sunday, a decisive fact that r.vould make the note void. The appellate court may announce its intention to take judicial notice of t[e fact as shown by the calendar and require the parties to lrc heard on the nratter. Again, plaintiff sued a
t Feria, Revised Rules on No.4), p. 3.

This pr.ovision is baserl upon ltasic notions of lrrocedunil due pr'o1es-e, silce judicial notice largelS' preempts the normal ecttlse cf the f:rct-

E..'idence Annotated (Philippinc Legal Studies, Series

No. 4), pp. 3-4. 5 lbid.

of Court, as amended. . F;;; ffii;e R;i;s on EviAett." Annotated (Philippine Legul Studies, Series

See Sec. 3, Rule 129, Rules

10 $Ioore's Federal Practice, II-41.



sEC. 4, nULE


raih'oad company for damages for personal injuries, claimed to have been crused by the railroad's failure to comply with the safety rules promulgated by the L:rnd Transportation Commission. The arttorney for the defendant, apparently after the apperrl, discovereci that zl rule h:rd been promulgated by the Commission that rvould negate the alleged negligence of the defendant. Counsel for the defendant may reqLrest the appellate court to take judicill notice of that fact and the lattcr miiy lequire the counsel of the plaintiff to be heard. An :qrpellate court contemplating judicial notice should notify tire parbies so that the propriety of t*king notice :rnd the tertor of the nt:rtter to be noticecl can bc eugued. The pcint ol-rviously may be decisive of the appeal or the court wottld not be considering it. Even u'here the fact apperrs indisputable it may be fairer to allow the adversely affected party to challenge its relevancy or raise tlie possibility of remurding for further proof. If oral argument has alreacly been completed, the coult should at least afford the parties an oppoltunity to submit supplcrhent:rl bliefs.6 May tlrc cout't consult approTtt"iate and reliable QUESTION 4, - in rJ,etemdwing u'hether a fact is p'roper su,b:iect ot' towces ol inf ormat'ion iud,icial not'ice? AIIS\'VER. Yes. The judge r'l.tay consult wolks on collateral scriences or :rrts,-touching the topic on trial. He may dt':nv, for instance, on ntythology, in order to determine the meaning of similes in an antbipiuous writing. IIc may refel' to almana.cs; he may apireal to his own memory for the meaning of a woi:d in the l'ernacttlar; he m:ry, as to tho rneaning of terms, refer to dictionaries of science of all classes; he may cletermine the meaning of abbreviations of Cliristirrn names ancl offices and of other cornmon ter-rns; zts to a point of political history (e.g., the recognition of a foreign gover"nrnent) he may consult tlie executil'q dgpar:tment of the state; he may cause inquiry to be made as to the practice eminent conveyancer as to a rule of conveyancing practice. And also the court may irave recourse to the legislative rolis to deterrnine the construction of a statttte.? proceedings in the same case' does _not by a lnrty in the course of the requir-e proof. 'Ihe admission may be contradicted only by showing that it rvas made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made. 1. Judicial admissions defined. 2. Extrajudicial admissions defined. 3. Judicial admissions distinguished from extrajudicial admissions. 4. Forms of judicial rdmissions. 5. Ef1cct of invalid and ineffective deniai of actionable docuntents. 6. Adnrission contained in pleadings filed in anothcr action. 7. No adrnission arises rvhen defendant is adjudged in cicfeuit. 8. Stiprrlation of facis in criminal cases. 9-10. Adrnissions in rvithdrau'n, supcrsedcd or ar:rcntled plcadings.
11-13. Effect of judicial admissions.

of other courts; and Lord Hardwicke went so fzrr as to inquire of




Judieial admi.ssions.

An admission, verbal or rvritten, made


Defitzc judicial admissions.

'j Currie, "Appcllate Courts Use of Facts Outside of the Reeord by llesorb to Judicial Nolice and Itrdependent Investigation," 1960 \1 isc. L. Rev. 39, 52. ? Wharton's Crirnitial Evidence.

i I






ANS\4iIIR. * .Iudicial admissions ue thcse so rnacle in thc pleadings fiied or in the progress of a trial.l Define entrajurlicial admissi.ons. QUESTION 2. ANSWEB. Extrajudicial admissions are those made out of court, proceeding other than the one under consideration.z cr in a judicial QUESTION ?>. *, iuclicial admissions from, ertc"aiudicial,

ANSWER. -.- Juclicial admissions are conclusive upon the part5r making them, while extrajuclicial admissions or other admissions are, as :i rule and where thc eiements of estoppel are not lrresent, disputable.s Vl/ltat ure the dif f erent forms of judicial ad,misQUIISTION 4.

"of proof

ANSl,Vi.lR. A judicial zrtlmission may be oral as a verbal waiver - open court, lr. withdrerwal of a contention, or a disclosure m:rde in nr:idc trefore the couri, or &n adrnission made by a witness in the course of his testim;:n.', or" clcposition, or may be in writing as in pleading, bill nf prrticuirls, slil"rul:rtion of, facts, request for admission, or a judicial rd.mission contained in an affidavit used in the case.a lVhat is the effect of an inualid, and inef f cctiue QUESTION 5. tlania! of actionul:lt doannents attached to the complaint? ANSWER. In a case, the court held: "The rule provides: Judicial -Adrnission, verbal or written, made by a party in the Admissions. - proceedirrg in the same case, does not require proof. The coul'se of the :rcimission may be contr':rdicted only by showing that it was made through 1;llp:rble n"listake or that no such admission was made." "As e:lrly as 1925 in the case of Asia Banking Corporation vs. Walter E. Olsen & Co. (-18 Phil. 1129) rve have ruled that documents attached to ilre complaint :rre consiclered a part thereof and may be considered as eridence althcugh they are not introdttced as such. "The Deed of Exchange was attached to the petition. Necessa::il3', JALECO'S contention that it has no knowledge or information sufficient to fr:rtn il belief ers to the truth of the tleed of exehange becomes an invalid ci' ineffective denial pursuant to the Rules of Court. Under the circumstances, the petitioner cottid have easily asserted 'whether or not it executed 4 the deed of exchange. by the admission Chua and the non-denial of JALECO "Considering c.f the document forming part of the petition, the appellate court committed leversible error in not admitting the deed of exchange as evidence."6 Is an admission containerl i,n a in SUESTION 6. - to thc issue. on tt'iul a iudicial admdssion? filed, cnotlter actian motcrial

ANSWER. No. To be considered a judicial admission, the admis- in the same case, otherwise, it is an extrajudicial sion n:ust be mlile
r 2 Joncs on Evidence, Sec, 89.1 ; Anderson's Dict.; Bouv. Dict.; 1 Greenleaf on Evidence, Sec. 2?. e Pelry vs. Singson, 40 Conn. 313; Tracy's Handbook', 62 Ed., pp, 9-10. ;tBarber vs, Ilennett, 60 Yt. 662; 5 Ail. 433, 1 L.II.A. 224. { 31 C.J.S. 1069. a Philippine Bank of Cornmunicati,)ns vs. Court. of Appeals, 195 SCRA 567. 0 See Sec. 4, Ruie 129. Rules of Court, as amended.



sEc. 4, RULE


An aclmission macle in anothcr case does not have the same force as o :uai"i,,r-';d";i-*ri"; in the same case, but is regarded as being in the natu"e of an extrajudicial admission.T Does faiture to answer the complnint amwnt to QUESTION 7. ju,rliciat adnlission of the facts ailegeil thcrein? lvhen a clefendant is declarecl in default for having ANSWER. filecl to alswer tfte compiai"t, *"tt a failure does not amount to an admission of the flcts ;it6;d in tle complaint.s If the defendant fails to :lnswer within the fi;;;p".ili"O-i" thd rules, the court shall, upon -m9ti93 default' oi the pf,,intitt ana prJ#;i il"h failure, deciare ttrg {e{9Laant in and evidenee plaintiff's the receive to court-tit^fi-pto."ed iftur",,put,, the facts the and r."4"" juAlt"e"t gra"titrg trim suctr lelief as the Cornplaint plonosed. by.the liroven **y *urronl.' in ttris connection,.it ,has,been judgment'be rendered on of court'that noit* trc Revision oommittee "r defendlnt.lo ii';;i;;,ti"g* i" .uru of default on the part of the t eunSTIoN 8. /s a stipulation of facts allou<tcl'in crintinal cases? In U.S. vs. Pobre (11 Phil. 51) it was held that it is ANSWER. to consider a case closed, or to render nbitfrer p"op", ,ro"-p"r"nirsible entered into between the :iuag*.rt tLerein, b^y virtue of a1 agreement with reference to facts accused [he for itroii".iuf fiscal and-the counsel others related to the and defense, the to icme of which are favorable or testimony taken from aclduced being evidence any pi'o.u"utio", without practice is not authorized the witnesses mentioned in the agreement; such violation of open ,urd defeats the purposes of the criminal law; it is an the rules of criminal Procedure. of the supreme It v,,ould seem that the aforementionec cloctline the light of .the true-in holds longer no 1908 as ur-uutw down court laid of the Revised 118 in Rule prrcvisions in criminal cases fo-un4 p"Jiiii -R.ol"; following: the others, provides, among ;i bourt, which _ The pre.trial corrferSee. 2. Pre-trial conference; subjects. ence shall consider the following: xxx xxx xxx (b) StiPulntion of facts; xxx xxx xxx promote a fair etttd expeclitiotts (e) Such other rnattels as will trial. In this connection, American jurisprudence holds that in a criminal case, the parties, prosecution and defenie, may stip-ulate that defendant's confession was voiuntarily made,n although this does not establish the truth thereof.l2 They may also stipulate as to the validity of a search warrant.t, By stipulation a defendant may waive the introduetion of all of the state's evidence, agree what the testimony would be, waive bhe


A p"ob"t"l of ;'he Revision Committee of the Rules of Court' rr Fed"t" vs. Barnes, 30 bal. 2d 624, 183 P. 2d 664 (1947)' rcFeoite vs. Smith,'3z Ill. 2d 88, 203 N.E. 2d' 879 (1966)' -. ts?i-i;.' jo". Za'stipuiations, Secs. I et seq.; 83 C.J.S. Stipulations, Secs.

3 e

22 C.J. 329,330. Lopez vs. Mendezona, 11 Phil. 209. Sec. 1, Rule 18, Rules of Court'

sEc. 4, RULE




light to introduce his defense,


and rest its The parties may also that a specified witness, if called to testify, would testify to certain facts, give testimony of a particular kind or character, in a particular manner, or to a stated effect.16 Stipulations voluntarily entered into between the parties will be respected and enforced by the courts unless contrary to public policy or good morals.rG A formal judicial stipulation as to the facts is conclusive between the parties as long as it standsl? and such facts are not subiect to contradiction by showing the facts to be otherwise than as agreed upon.r8 However, the binding effect of the facts applies only to the parties in agreement; it is no more binding on the court than any other evidence in the case.le Mag a pleadi'ng which has been superseded' or QUESTION 9.
amend,ed, be considered as

iu.dicial ad,missi.on? ANSWER. Under the rule of procedure, pleadings superseded or - from the record as judicial admissions, and in order amended disappear that any statements contained therein may be considered as all extrajudicial admission, said pleadiugs should be offered formally in evidence. If not offered in evidence the admission contained therein will not be cousidered.s The origi,nal complaint in the Eiectment Case QUESTION 10.

"The pluintiffs and, the defen'il,ant Macaria A. Bautista at'e the lngal heirs anil neat'est of kins of Margarita Torres, who ilieil 'tn Tanza, Caai'te on December 20, 7997." The statement, accord,ing to petitioner, is an ad,mission of her legiti,' nwtion and is controlling in the determitwti,on of her participati'on in the tlisputed, pro'perty. In the Amended Complaint filed' by pri,aate respon' d,ents in the same Eicctment Case, the und,erlined' portion uas d'eleted' so that the statement sintply read: "That tlre plnintiffs are the legal heirs and, nearest of lcin of Margarita Torres, who ilteil at Tanza, Caai'te on
raPeople vs. Hewkins,2T lll,zd 339" 189 N.E. 2d,262,253 (1963): "An accusid by stipulation may waive' the necessity'of proof of all or part of the case, which tf,e People have alleged ageinst him, and having done so, he cannot complain o-tt evidence whlch he stipulated into the record," following People vs. Hare, 26 lll. zd't 321, 186 N.E. 2d 1?8, 1?9 (1962). But see United States vs. Cockerham, 476 F. 2d 642, 645 (C.A,-D.C.-19?3) holding defendant has no right to stipulate all facts of a crime if it would tend to produce an inflammatory impact on the jury. A plea of guilty has been likened to a stipulation that no proof need be presented, thereby eupplying both evidence and verdict, thus ending the controversy. Albright vs. State, 60 Ala. App.480,280 So.2d f86 (19?3). rslreland vs. Stalbaum, 162 Neb. 630, 77 N.W. 2d 156 (1966). r0 Khulmann i's. Platte Valley Irrigation Dist., 166 Neb. 498, 89 N.W. 2d ?68 (1e58).

Ct. 466, 49 L. Ed. 826 (1904); State vs. Sorrell, 109 Ariz. 171, 506 P. 2d 1066, 106? (19?3). In this case the parties (in a robbery case) had stipulated that the lights (in the patking lot where the robbery took plaee) were always off after 10:00 p.m. The court held coungel could not introduce evidence with respect to whether the lishts were on or not at 2:00 a-nt.
rs Backfield vs. Unitd States, 197 U.S. 442, 26 S.

Ireland vs. Stalbaum, supra.

when the robbery occurred. 1e Ireland vs. Stalbaum, supra. 20Buenaventura vs. Villar, et al.; Director of Lands vr. Abaloteo, et 58 O.G. 3100; Director of Lands vs. Ccurt of Appeals, 196 SCRA 94.

al.; (CA)





I)ecenrbe'r 90, 7937." trVhat is the effect of tlte am,ended co'tttplai'nt on the admissions corutained, in the original cou,plaint?

In virtue thereof, the Amended Complaint takes the ANSWER. The latter is regarded as abandoned and ceases to of the original. per{orm any further function as a pleading. The origiltal complaint uo ionger forms part of the record. (Reynes vs. Compattia General de 'labacos, 21 Phil. 416). If petitioner had desired to utilize the original conrplaint she shottltl have offered it in evidence. Having been amendecl, the origin:rl complaint lost its character as a judicial admission, which would have required no proof, ilnd became merely an extlnjudicial admission, the admissibility of u'hich, as evidence, required its formal offer. Contrary to petitioner's submission, therefole, there can be no estoppei by extraiudicial atlmission made in the original cornplaint, for failure to offer it in evidence. (Javell:rna \rs. D. O. Plaza, Iinterprises, Inc., 32 SCRA 2611.rt What is tlte effect of u iud,icis'I adnission? QUESTION 11. ANSWER. Under the rules, a judicirl aclmission cannot be conprevionsly shown to have been made thrtr palpable mistake traflicted unless or that no such admission was made.22 A1:rdmission in a pleading ou whit:ir a paltl' goes to trial is colclusive agrinst him unless the court in its reasonable discretion allows the pl_eatler tJ withctrarv, explain or modify it if it aplrelrs to have been made by improvidence or mistake23 or that no such admission was made, i.e., "not in the sense in rvhich the admission rvits made to appeal"' oi' "the admission was taken out of context."2{
xr Torres vs. court of Appeals, 131 SCRA 24. See also Bastida vs. Menzi co., 58 Phil.223; Lucido vs. Calupitan, et 41.,2? Phil. 148. :2 Sec. 4, Rule 129, Rules of Court, as amended. Three changes have been made: 1) l,he admission of a party may be vcrbal or NriLten, not ouly in the pleadings. 2't The admission is made in the course of thc procecdines iu the sanre case' Bi The arlmission may be contradicted not only by showing. that it lvas made through palpable mistake, but also by shorving that no such admission 'n'as made. As;do from admissiorrs in plcadings. adnrissions obtained through depositions, written interrogatories or requests for atlmission filed with the court constitute
Raaieio tr, C ontnrittee.

judicial admissions which do riot require proof. i'eria, Reaised Rulcs on Eaitlence Annotated ( Legal Stucliei, Ser"lee No.4), p.4; See also llliuttes ol the
2ilKanopka vs. Kanopka, 164 A. 144, llg Conn.30,80 A.L.R. 619; 31 C.J.S. 1171. !r See Minutes of the Revision Committee. Similarly, we find no erl.or in the denial by the Trial Court of plaintiff-appellant'.s Motion to recall or corleet sone pre-trial admission. Pursuant to Sec. 4, Rule 20 of the Rules of Court, the Order entered at the pre-trial controls the subsequent eourse of the action. I'urthermore, under Rule 129, Section 3, it is necessery for a partl' rvho desires to be relieved of the effects of admissions in the pleadjngs and any admiseions made in the course of the trial, to show that the admission had been made through palpable mistake. In this case, that there 'q'as no such palpable mistake is shown by the fact that the year "1928" was stated not only in paragraph 4 of the Complaint, but repeated in the Prayer, and reiterated in the Pre-trial edmissiot:s. Gotico oe. I*:Jte Chinese Chamber of Commerce, 136 SCRA 219, Soriano is bound by his orvn petition and by the adjudication of bis claim made in ecnsonance with his prayer. A party can not trifle with a court's decision or order which he hinrself soug'ht with full awareness of his lights undcr the prernises,

by taking it or leaving it at pleasure. The allegations, statements or admissions contained in a pleading are conclusive as against the pleader. A party cannot subsequently take a position eontradictory of, or inconsistent witrh, his pleadings,
(McDaniel vs. Apacible, 44 Phil, 448; 49 C.J. 128-134)' Specifieally, he is not allowed

sEc. 4, nuLE




A judici:rl admission cannot be contradicted unless first shown to l:ave been made through lialpable mistake. Thus, rebuttal evidence which tends to show that defendant's monetary obligation to plaintiff is more than what the l;rtter had both alleged in her complaint and tried to prove with his evidence-in-chief is a contradiction of a judicial adrnission. It is not allowed especially since plriintiff has not shorvn ihat stritl iudicial rdmission was made through palpable mistahe.ri When lTilemon G. Salccdo, Jr. filed ltis anszoer QUESTION 12. - of Maniln, he repeated,ly in th.e CFI (naw RTC) attegeil in th,e Dleading that Bayani G. Salceilo is the president anrl general manttger of the F.M. salcedo & sons, Inc. He also ocknowledged th,at fact in the joint motiort, to dism'iss filed in ci,uil Cuse No. &.!t724 tohich Eayani G. sa,tced,o signed, as Ttresiclent of said corporation uhile Filenton G. Salceda, Jr., affiteil lti-s signature as a m,ere defendent (Erh. K). Wh,ut is the effect of the arhn'ission in the answer? ANSWER. This judicial admission is deemed conclusive zrnd is rot allowed to be-contradicted, it not being cl:rimed that the same was mzrde through a pa\rable mistake (Sec.2, Rule 129, Rules of Court). It is rrot ccrrect to say that the said judicial admission was deemed supersedcrl in view of the denial of said fact in the answer filed in the present action. Aside from the circumsttrnce th:rt a llleading in one case cannot be superseded by a subsequent pleading in another, it is incongruous to maintain that a judicinl admission may be deemed superseded at all.26

sl iltu,lution?

In a eertain insoluency Tn"oeeerling the .par.ties QUESTION 13. - u,herebu tlt,ey agreed, to tlte into a sti,pu,lcttion sale of tlre good,s in certain ruareltouse, agreeing further that the stor"age fees rlue for th,e storage of the good,s will be ,paid from, the proceerls of the sale. One of tlre parties signing the sti.pul.ation later on ref used to sanction payment of storo,11e f ees for the goods, Are the .parties bouncl by tlte terms of the

Wrere property stored in a lv:rrehouse was claimed

to ask his moncy back ,w-hen the peso value is good, and Jater say he rvants to k&p tlre l:rnd rvhcn tire pcsc purchasing power is down. Cu.nana.n os. Ampo,ro, et al., ttq Phil" 22r. See also Sta. Ana as. Maliwat, pl SCRA 1018; Surigos Angfa,rtvgW, Assuraus Forening as. Qua Chee Gan, zl SCRA 15. 4 x.-,Elayda vs. Court of Appeals, 199 SCRA 349. See Justice A.L. Benipayo, Survey of Significant 1991 Decisions in Evidence. :8 Salcedo, et al. vs Salcedo, et a1., (CA) 72 O.G, 344. See also Fabia vs. Interrliediate Appellate CourL, 133 SCRA 364; Vda" de Malasarte vs. Perez, et al. (CA) 75 O.G.2235; National h'rigation vs. Judge Regino, 192 SCRA 42; Western Agro Industrial Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 188 SCRA ?09. It is a familiar doctrine that an admission made in the pleadings cannot be controlertcd by the party making such ndnission and are conclusive as to him, and that ali proofs submitted by him contlary thereto or inconsistent therervith should be ignoled, rvhether objection is inlerposed by the party or not (Cunanan vs. Amparo, 80 Phil.227i Eamirez vs. Orientalist Co.,38 Phil.634; McDaniel vs. Apacible,44 Phil, 248). Joe's Radto & Electrical Supply as. AIto Electroni.cs Corp.- anrl Alto Surety & Insurs,nce Co., |nc,, 10t+ Phil.333; Lu.n,a us, Luna, g0 CAn (eS) 192, It is true that no evidence was presented sholving the character of the possession, held by the defendant of the lands in question, but such is unnecessary eonsidering the admissions made by the plaintiffs in the complaint and in the stipulation of facts, A careful anaiysis of the admission made in both pleading would reveal at once that defendant has beeu in open, adverse and continuous possession of said lands since at least 1916 up to 1949, or a period of 33 years. Espique, et al. us. Espique, S9 Phil. 448.


sEc. 1, BULE


by different persons who entered into a written stipulation authorizing bound by ii" ol", and it was sold under the stipulation, the partigs are sale, the the after and stipulation, in the contained lfr" t ti* and recitals cannot be changed or modified b)' any subsequent acts or "Epof"Uo" of the parties.r eonduct