This case has been cited 2 times or more.
2004-07-20 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
"PARC Resolution 94-24-1 of 25 October 1994, implemented by DAR AO 13, granted interest on the compensation at 6% compounded annually. The compounded interest on the 46 cavans for 26 years is 199.33 cavans. At P400.00 per cavan, the value of the compounded interest is P79,732.00."[23] (emphasis added) Well-settled is the rule that courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of the contents of the records of other cases even when said cases have been tried or are pending in the same court or before the same judge.[24] They may only do so "in the absence of objection" and "with the knowledge of the opposing party,"[25] which are not obtaining here. | |||||
2001-10-19 |
DE LEON, JR., J. |
||||
The Municipal Trial Court of Norzagaray should have taken judicial notice of the said criminal cases involving the subject parcel of land and pending in its docket. While, as a general rule, courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of the contents of the records of other cases, even when such cases have been tried or are pending in the same court, and notwithstanding the fact that both cases may have been tried or are actually pending before the same judge,[24] this rule is subject to the exception that "in the absence of objection and as a matter of convenience to all parties, a court may properly treat all or any part of the original record of the case filed in its archives as read into the records of a case pending before it, when with the knowledge of the opposing party, reference is made to it, by name and number or in some other manner by which it is sufficiently designated."[25] Respondents did not impugn nor object to the evidence of petitioner on the existence of the said criminal cases of malicious mischief that sprung from the alleged forcible entry of petitioner's alleged property. Thus, the said Municipal Trial Court should have taken judicial notice of these facts in resolving the issue of prior possession. |