This case involves a complaint filed by DMC-Urban Property Developer, Inc. (DMC) against Habagat Grill and Louie Biraogo for forcible entry onto a residential lot owned by DMC in Davao City. DMC alleged that Louie Biraogo unlawfully entered the lot in December 1993 and constructed Habagat Grill, illegally depriving DMC of possession. The Municipal Trial Court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction and cause of action. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding the lower court had jurisdiction over forcible entry complaints. The Supreme Court held that while municipal courts can take judicial notice of local ordinances, this is limited to what the law states and does not extend to assuming
This case involves a complaint filed by DMC-Urban Property Developer, Inc. (DMC) against Habagat Grill and Louie Biraogo for forcible entry onto a residential lot owned by DMC in Davao City. DMC alleged that Louie Biraogo unlawfully entered the lot in December 1993 and constructed Habagat Grill, illegally depriving DMC of possession. The Municipal Trial Court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction and cause of action. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding the lower court had jurisdiction over forcible entry complaints. The Supreme Court held that while municipal courts can take judicial notice of local ordinances, this is limited to what the law states and does not extend to assuming
Original Title
JUDICIAL NOTICE Habagat Grill v. DMC Urban Developer.docx
This case involves a complaint filed by DMC-Urban Property Developer, Inc. (DMC) against Habagat Grill and Louie Biraogo for forcible entry onto a residential lot owned by DMC in Davao City. DMC alleged that Louie Biraogo unlawfully entered the lot in December 1993 and constructed Habagat Grill, illegally depriving DMC of possession. The Municipal Trial Court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction and cause of action. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding the lower court had jurisdiction over forcible entry complaints. The Supreme Court held that while municipal courts can take judicial notice of local ordinances, this is limited to what the law states and does not extend to assuming
This case involves a complaint filed by DMC-Urban Property Developer, Inc. (DMC) against Habagat Grill and Louie Biraogo for forcible entry onto a residential lot owned by DMC in Davao City. DMC alleged that Louie Biraogo unlawfully entered the lot in December 1993 and constructed Habagat Grill, illegally depriving DMC of possession. The Municipal Trial Court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction and cause of action. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding the lower court had jurisdiction over forcible entry complaints. The Supreme Court held that while municipal courts can take judicial notice of local ordinances, this is limited to what the law states and does not extend to assuming
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 2
HABAGAT GRILL Through LOUIE BIRAOGO,
Proprietor/Manager, Petitioners, vs. DMC-URBAN PROPERTY DEVELOPER, INC., respondent.
G.R. No. 155110; March 31, 2005
FACTS
Consunji Inc. acquired and became the owner of a
residential lot situated in Matina Davao City. On June 13, 1981, David Consunji Inc transferred said lot to its sister company, the DMC Urban Property Developers, Inc (DMC) in whose favor a TCT was issued. Alleging that Louie Biraogo forcibly entered said lot and built the Habagat Grill in December 1993, DMC filed [1994] a Complaint for Forcible Entry against Habagat Grill and/or Louie Biraogo.
The Complaint alleged that as owner, DMC possessed
the lot in question from June 11, 1981 until December 1, 1993, that on that day, December 1, 1993, Louie Biraogo, by means of strategy and stealth, unlawfully entered into the lot in question and constructed the Habagat Grill thereon, thus illegally depriving DMC of the possession of said lot since then up to the present, that the reasonable rental value of said lot is P10,000 a month. Louie Biraogo in his Answer denied illegally entering the lot in question. After necessary proceedings, the Municipal Trial Court in Cities dismissed the case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and lack of cause of action. DMC appealed from said decision.
Granting respondent’s appeal, the Court of Appeals
ruled that the court of origin had jurisdiction over the Complaint for Forcible Entry. ISSUE:
Whether the MTC can take judicial notice under
Section 2, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court.
HELD.
NO. Judicial notice is the cognizance of certain facts
which judges may properly take and act on without proof because they already know them; Municipal courts may take judicial notice of the municipal ordinances in force in the municipality in which they sit, but such notice is limited to what the law is and what it states.— “Judicial notice is the cognizance of certain facts which judges may properly take and act on without proof because they already know them.” Its object is to save time, labor and expense in securing and introducing evidence on matters that are not ordinarily capable of dispute or actually bona fide disputed, and the tenor of which can safely be assumed from the tribunal’s general knowledge or from a slight search on its part. Indeed, municipal courts may take judicial notice of the municipal ordinances in force in the municipality in which they sit. Such notice, however, is limited to what the law is and what it states.
