PRIETO v.

ARROYO, ISSUE
G.R. No. L-17885 June 30, 1965
Whether there was res judicata- YES
Judicial Notice
HELD
FACTS
The claim that the court did not acquire jurisdiction over the appellees as
In 1948 Zeferino Arroyo, Sr. filed in the CFI of Camarines Sur a petition
they did not file any opposition or responsive pleading is untenable. This
for registration of several parcels of land, including Lot No. 2. After the
is because the postponement of hearing on January 14, 1957 to May 16,
proper proceedings OCT No. 39 covering said lot was issued in his name.
1957 was due to respondents. Likewise, the hearing set on May 16, 1957
In the same year and in the same Court, Gabriel P. Prieto filed a petition
was postponed to July 12, 1957 upon motion of the respondents.
for registration of an adjoining parcel of land. As a result Original
Certificate of Title No. 11 was issued in his name. Appellant next points out that the lower court should not have
dismissed his first petition for annulment because no "parole"
After the death Zeferino, OCT No. 39 was cancelled and in lieu thereof
evidence need be taken to support it, the matters therein alleged
TCT No. 227 was issued in the names of his heirs, the defendants in this
being parts of the records of L.R.C. No. 144, G.L.R.O. No. 1025, and
case. Subsequently, the heirs filed a petition of CFI of Camarines Sur
L.R.C. 173, G.L.R.O. No. 1474, which were well within the judicial
claiming that the technical description set forth in their TCT and in the
notice and cognizance of the said court.
OCT of their predecessor did not conform with that embodied in the
decision of the land registration court, and was less in area by some 157 As a general rule, courts are not authorized to take judicial notice in
square meters. They therefore prayed that said description be corrected. the adjudication of cases pending before them, of the contents of
This was docketed as Special Proceedings No. 900. other cases, even when such cases have been tried or are pending
in the same court, and notwithstanding the fact that both cases may
On May 23, 1956 the court issued an order directing the Register of
have been tried or are actually pending before the same judge
Deeds of Camarines Sur to "change, the description in TCT No. 227 of
Additionally, if appellant had really wanted the court to take judicial notice
Lot 2 so as to make it conform to that embodied in the decision of the
of such records, he should have presented the proper request or
Court and to correct therein the spelling of the name of one of the
manifestation to that effect instead of sending, by counsel, a telegraphic
petitioners from 'Miden Arroyo' to 'Meden Arroyo'.
motion for postponement of hearing, which the court correctly denied.
Thereafter petitioner Prieto filed a petition to annul the order of May 23 in Finally, the point raised by counsel is now academic, as no appeal was
Special Proceedings No. 900. At the hearing of the petition neither he nor taken from the order dismissing his first petition, and said order had long
his counsel appeared thus the case was dismissed for failure to become final when the complaint in the present action was filed.
prosecute. On September 1958, Prieto again filed again the same petition
Lastly, there was res judicata since the first petition (amending the
for the cancellation of the order issued on May 23 1956. Defendants
records) is similar to the present petition (asking for reconveyance of
moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground of res judicata, which was
land) as in both instances the effect would be the reversion of 157
granted.
hectares at issue. The claim for damages and other reliefs are not
Plaintiff then appealed the case claiming that Special Proceedings No. materially different from such other remedies, just and equitable in the
900 was irregular and illegal mainly because he was not notified thereof premises" prayed for in the first case.
and the same was instituted almost six years after the issuance of the
decree and title sought to be corrected.