Catungal v.
Hao (Short title) ISSUE/S
GR # 134972 | March 22, 2001
Petitioner: Sps. Ernesto and Mina Catungal
Respondent: Doris Hao
(Rule 129, Section 2)
DOCTRINE
Judicial cognizance is taken only of those matters that are commonly known.
The power of taking 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.
FACTS
- Galang, leased a three-storey building situated at Baclaran to BPI
for a period of15 years and during the existence of the lease, BPI
subleased the ground floor to Hao.
- Galang and Hao executed a contract of lease on the second and
third floors of the building. and spouses Catungal subsequently
bought the property from Galang.
- Invoking her right of first refusal purportedly based on the lease,
Hao filed a complaint for Annulment of Sale with RTC Makati.
- Meanwhile, the lease agreement between BPI and Galang expired.
so Spouses Catungal sent demand letters to Hao to vacate.
- The demand letters were unheeded causing the spouses to file two
complaints for ejectment, with MeTC Paranaque.
o Hao then filed an action for injunction with RTC of Makati,
to stop the MeTC of Paranaque from proceeding.
- The cases were consolidated with RTC of Makati which rendered a
decision granting the injunction and annulling the contract of sale.
- On appeal, CA reversed and set aside the decision of the RTC and
the complaints were accordingly dismissed.
- Hao elevated the case before the SC which denied the same.
- The MeTC Paranaque, after the reversal of the decision for
injunction, proceeded with the trial of the ejectment cases and
rendered a Decision ordering Hao to vacate.
- Spouses Catungal filed a motion for clarificatory judgment on the
ground that MeTC only awarded rent for the ground floor. MeTC
clarified that the payment was only for the use of the first floor.
- Spouses sought reconsideration, praying that Hao be ordered to
pay the use all floors and Hao.
- Instead of resolving the motion for reconsideration, the MeTC of
issued an Order, elevating the case to the RTC.
- RTC of Paranaque ordered that the rentals should covers all floors.
- CA reduced the amount of rentals for the second and third floors.
1. W/N CA erred in reversing the findings of the RTC by using as basis for
reducing the rental only the evidence submitted by the parties and
ignoring circumstances of which the RTC properly took judicial notice.
PROVISIONS
Rule 129, Section 2
Judicial notice, when discretionary. — A court may take judicial notice of
matters which are of public knowledge, or are capable to unquestionable
demonstration, or ought to be known to judges because of their judicial
functions. (1a)
RULING & RATIO
1. Yes
- In ruling that the increased rental should be awarded, RTC based
its decision on the doctrine of judicial notice.
- The Court a quo misappreciated the nature of the property, its
location and the business practice in the vicinity and indeed
committed an error in fixing the amount of rentals.
- According to jurisprudence, the trial court had the authority to fix the
reasonable value for the continued use and occupancy of leased
premises after the termination of the lease contract, and that it was
not bound by the stipulated rental in the contract of lease.
- The RTC correctly applied the legal concept of judicial notice
- Judicial knowledge may be defined as the cognizance of certain
facts which a judge under rules of legal procedure or otherwise may
properly take or act upon without proof because they are already
known to him, or is assumed to have, by virtue of his office.
- Judicial cognizance is taken only of those matters that are
commonly known. The power of taking 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.
- Matters of judicial notice have three requisites: (1) matter must be
one of common and general knowledge; (2) must be well and
authoritatively settled and not doubtful or uncertain (3) it must be
known to be within the limits of jurisdiction of the court.
- The RTC correctly took judicial notice of the nature of the leased
property subject of the case at bench based on its location and the
commercial viability.
DISPOSITION
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor
of petitioners by reinstating the decision of the RTC, with modifications.