EVIDENCE | B2015
CASE DIGESTS
B.E. SAN DIEGO, INC. V. CA AND
JOVITA MATIAS
October 28, 2010
Brion, J.
Rañeses, Roberto Miguel O.
(Apologies for the length. Considering the way Ma’am asks questions, I deemed it
fit to err on the side of caution.)
SUMMARY: B.E. San Diego filed a complaint for recovery of possession
of property against Matias. One of B.E. San Diego’s pieces of evidence
to prove ownership is TCT-134756, which supposedly refers to the
property subject of litigation. Matias, on the other hand, claims that
the TCT covers a property in Barrio Tinajeros, while the subject
property is in Barrio Catmon. The RTC took judicial notice of the fact
that Barrio Catmon was previously a part of Barrio Tinajeros, thereby
stating that the property referred to in the TCT and the actual
property are one and the same. The CA reversed, stating that the
discrepancy warranted expert testimony. The SC reinstated the RTC’s
decision, upholding the RTC’s authority to take judicial notice of
geographical divisions.
DOCTRINE: Section 1 of Rule 129 of the Rules of Court includes
geographical divisions as among matters that courts should take
judicial notice of.
FACTS:
1. According to B.E. San Diego:
a. It is the registered owner of a parcel of land located in
Hernandez St., Catmon, Malabon [TCT No. T-134756],
registered with the Register of Deeds of Caloocan, and
identified as Lot No. 3 Block No. 13, with an area of
228 sq. m.
b. Claimed that Matias has been occupying the property
for over a year without its authority or consent.
c. As both its oral and written demands to vacate were
left unheeded, B.E. San Diego filed a complaint for the
recovery of possession of the property against Matias
on 15 March 1990 before the RTC.
2. According to Matias [as found in her answer]:
a. She and her family has been living on the property
since the 1950s on the basis of a written permit issued
by the LGU of Malabon in 1954.
b. She and her family had introduced substantial
improvements on the property, as well as paying for
the realty taxes of the same.
c. She is a legitimate beneficiary of P.D. No. 1517 and P.D.
No. 2016, which classified the property as part of the
Urban Land Reform Zone [ULRZ] and an Area for
Priority Dev’t {APD].
d. She questioned B.E. San Diego’s claim over the property,
pointing out that the title relied upon by the latter, TCT
No. T-134756, covers a property in Barrio Tinajeros,
Malabon, while the subject property is located in Barrio
Catmon.
i. Consequently, she claims that the property
B.E. San Diego seeks to recover is different
from the property she is occupying.
3. Ruling of the RTC:
a. There was no issue as to the identity of the property.
i. The property covered by B.E. San Diego’s TCT
is the same as the one being occupied by
Matias.
b. It took judicial notice of the fact that Barrio Catmon
was previously part of Barrio Tinajeros.
i. The Approved Subdivision Plan and tax
declarations showed that the property is
indeed located in Barrio Catmon
c. Matias being a beneficiary of P.D. No. 1517 and P.D. No.
2016 was unfounded.
d. B.E. San Diego, therefore, has the right to recover the
property.
4. Ruling of the CA:
a. The discrepancy in the location was significant
i. RTC should have required an expert witness
from the concerned gov’t agency to explain
the matter.
b. Since Matias was in actual possession of the property
at the time of the filing of the complaint, her

possession should have been upheld under Art. 538 of
the CC.
c. Her being a beneficiary under P.D. 1517 and 2016
should be upheld.
ISSUES: WON the CA erred in ruling in favor of Matias.
RULING: YES. B.E. San Diego should be allowed to recover the property.
RATIO:
1. B.E. San Diego’s Arguments:
a. The CA should not have reversed the RTC’s findings on
the sole basis of the discrepancy as to location, which
has been explained by evidence.
b. The CA failed to consider the following pieces of
evidence which show that the property possessed by
Matias and the property referred to by their title is one
and the same:
i. TCT No. 134756 in the name of B.E. San Diego
[Lot No. 3, Block No. 15]
ii. Approved Subdivision Plan showing that the
property is in Barrio Catmon
iii. Tax Declaration No. B-005-00296 issued in
the name of B.E. San Diego, referring to the
subject property
iv. Testimonial evidence
v. Judicial notice by the RTC of Malabon, based
on public and common knowledge, that Barrio
Catmon was previously part of Barrio
Tinajeros
c. Matias is estopped from alleging that the property she
is occupying is different from the property covered by
TCT No. 134756.
i. Having raised res judicata in her motion to
dismiss in view of an earlier ejectment case,
Matias impliedly admitted that there is
2. Matias’s Arguments:
a. Same as those discussed by the CA.
3. Ruling of the SC:
EVIDENCE | B2015
CASE DIGESTS
a. B.E. San Diego’s TCT refers to the same property being
occupied by Matias.
i. There was no need for a testimony by an
expert witness. The RTC had previously
declared that the discrepancy arose because
Barrio Catmon used to be a part of Barrio
Tinajeros.
ii. The RTC has authority to make such
declaration because this is a matter of
mandatory judicial notice.
1. Sec. 1, Rule 129 of the RoC includes
geographical divisions.
b. Even without judicial notice, sufficient evidence exists
to prove such fact:
i. Both the title and tax declaration cover the
same boundaries to identify the property
c. Matias can no longer question the identity of the
property.
i. An allegation of res judicata, which is exactly
what she invoked her motion to dismissi in
view of an earlier ejectment case, constitutes
an admission of the subject matter.
ii. She never raised the discrepancy in the
ejectment suit
d. B.E. San Diego has the right to possess.
i. B.E. San Diego anchors its right based on
ownership of the property, as evidenced by
title.
ii. Matias, on the on the other hand, anchors it
on:
1. 1954 permit from the LGU of
Malabon
2. Miscellaneous Sales Application
3. Tax declarations and realty tax
payments
4. Beneficiary of P.D. No. 1517 and 2016
5. Long possession of the property since
1954
iii. It is settled doctrine that no title to register
land in derogation of that of the registered
 EVIDENCE | B2015
CASE DIGESTS

owner shall be acquired by prescription or

adverse possession.
1. Payment of realty taxes is not enough.
Matias only started paying on 1974,
when B.E. San Diego filed an
ejectment suit.
2. The Miscellaneous Sales Application,
without the approval of the Bureau of
Lands, remains a mere application
and does not vest title in the
applicant.
3. Matias is not a qualified beneficiary of
the laws cited. They do not protect
from eviction those whose presence
are merely tolerated.

DISPOSITIVE: WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition for review on

certiorari, and REVERSE the September 25, 2002 decision and May 20,
2003 resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 50213. The
June 22, 1995 decision of the Regional Trial Court of Malabon in Civil
Case No. 1421-MN is REINSTATED. Costs against the respondent.