ORDER
Defendants Heirs of Erlinda Libas in a Motion for Judicial Notice is asking
the court to take judicial notice of the proceedings in Civil Case No. 1076-SPL
entitled “Benjamin Insorio Jr. et. al. vs. Erlinda Libas”which was litigated before
this court. Civil Case No. 1076-SPL was originally an appeal from the decision of
the Municipal Trial Court, Branch 1, San Pedro, Laguna dismissing for lack of
jurisdiction the complaint for Annulment of Sale in Civil Case No. 2405 but tried
by this court as if it was original filed pursuant to Section 8, Rule 40 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure. Specifically, defendant prays that judicial notice be
taken of the following:
1. Transcript of stenographic notes (TSN) dated October 28, 1997
containing the proceedings during the pre-trial conference in Civil Case
No. 2405;
2. TSN of the testimony of Notary Public Atty. Agapito Carait in Civil Case
No. 2405 dated May 23, 2002;
3. Formal Offer of Exhibits in Civil Case No. 2405 including its exhibits;
4. Order dated August 6, 2004 admitting the above exhibits.
Defendant alleges that while Civil Case No. 1076-SPL pertains to a different
lot, the above documents contain judicial admissions and testimonies specifically
pertaining to the lot subject matter of this case.
Plaintiff opposes the motion on the ground that the contents of TSN dated
October 28, 1997 are self-serving. He further opposes the judicial admission of the
testimony of Atty. Agapito Carait contained in TSN dated May 23, 2002 alleging
that Atty. Carait failed to fully explain and clarify how he notarized the contested
Kasulatang Bilihang Tuluyan.
We resolve.
The parties in Civil Case No. 1076-SPL and the parties in the present case
are the same. In Civil Case No. 1076, plaintiffs were Benjamin Insorio, Jr, Jhon
Insorio, Arthur Insorio and Josephine Insorio, represented by their mother Selenia
Barcelon while the defendant was Erlinda Libas. In this present case, the plaintiffs
are Benjamin Insorio, Jr., John Insorio, Arthur Insorio and Josephine Insorio,
1
represented by Benjamin Insorio, Jr. while the defendant is the same Erlinda
Libas.1 In Civil Case No. 1076, the subject matter was Lot No. 39-C while in the
present case, the subject matter is Lot No. 48-J. Both parcels of land came from
Benjamin Insorio, Sr., predecessor-in interest of the plaintiffs. The two parcels of
land were acquired by defendant Erlinda Libas from the plaintiffs’ predecessor in
two separate deeds – Kasulatang Bilihang Tuluyan ng Lupa dated July 7, 1987 and
appearing as notarized by the Notary Public Atty. Agapito Carait. In both cases,
plaintiffs assail the regularity of the sale for the same reasons – allegedly, the
Kasulatang Bilihang Tuluyan ng Lupa were ante-dated and the thumbmarks of the
vendor Benjamin Insorio, Sr. were affixed by the defendant Erlinda Libas while
Insorio, Sr. was already in a comatose condition.
The factual issues of this case and the evidence in Civil Case No.1076-SPL
are therefore basically the same. For this reason the evidence the parties are
expected to present are also the same.
Section 3, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court provides:
Section 3. Judicial notice, when hearing necessary. — During the trial, the
court, on its own initiative, or on request of a party, may announce its intention to
take judicial notice of any matter and allow the parties to be heard thereon.
After the trial, and before judgment or on appeal, the proper court, on its
own initiative or on request of a party, may take judicial notice of any matter and
allow the parties to be heard thereon if such matter is decisive of a material issue in
the case. (n)
In Republic v. CA,2 citing Justice Edgardo L. Paras, the Supreme Court
ruled:
"A court will take judicial notice of its own acts and records in the same case, of facts
established in prior proceedings in the same case, of the authenticity of its own records of
another case between the same parties, of the files of related cases in the same court, and of
public records on file in the same court. In addition judicial notice will be taken of the record,
pleadings 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 another case between different parties in the same court."
1
Substituted by her heirs upon her demise in 2019.
2
G.R. No. 119288, August 18, 1997 cited in Degayo vs. Cecilia Magbanua-Dinglasan, et al., G.R. No. 173148,
April 6, 2015.
2
As further held in the case of Tiburcio v PHHC 3, “xxx courts have taken
judicial notice of proceedings in other cases, because of their close connection with
the matter in the controversy.”
Considering that the parties in Civil Case No. SPL-1076 and this present
case are the same, the factual issues are basically the same and the close
connection between this case and Civil Case No. SPL-1076, the court can certainly
take judicial notice of the proceedings in Civil Case No. 1076-SPL.
WHEREFORE, finding merit in the Motion for Judicial Notice of the
proceedings in SPL 1076-SPL filed by the defendant, it is hereby GRANTED. The
court takes judicial notice of a.) admissions made during the pre-trial conference in
Civil Case No. 2405 later Civil Case No. SPL-1076; b.) the testimony therein of
Atty. Agapito Carait; and c.) the exhibits formally offered and admitted in that
case.
It appearing that the plaintiff and defendant heirs of Erlinda Libas have
already filed their Memoranda, this case is now submitted for decision.
SO ORDERED.
February 10, 2021, San Pedro City, Laguna.
3
G.R. No. L-13479, October 31, 1957 cited in Degayo vs. Cecilia Magbanua-Dinglasan, et al., G.R. No. 173148,
April 6, 2015.
