City of Manila vs.

vs. There were squatters who invaded the lot that the City of RTC Manila was duty-bound to take judicial
Garcia Manila owned. Epifanio de Los Santos Elementary school notice of Ordinance 4566 because the city
needed to expand and occupy said land which the squatters charter of Manila required all courts sitting
took over. Treasurer demanded them to vacate the land therein to take judicial notice of all the
RTC Manila was duty- within 15 days but these demands went unheeded. Thus, a ordinances passed by the Municipal Board
bound to take judicial suit to recover possession. City of Manila presented as of Manila.
notice of Ordinance evidence a Certification by the Chairman of the Committee on
4566 because the city Appropriations of the Municipal Board. In the document,
charter of Manila 100,000 has been set aside for the construction of an
required all courts additional building of the EDSA Elementary school. RTC said
sitting therein to take inadmissible. But decision reversed, and declared that there
judicial notice of all the was a need for defendants to vacate the said land, and cited
ordinances passed by the Ordinance as basis.
the Municipal Board of
Manila. W/N court should take judicial notice of Exhibit E? -
YES

Baguio vs. De Jalagat 1st case: Recovery of Possession and Ownership of Real Estate The lower court certainly could take Teehankee Concurring:
filed by Gabriel Baguio against Mening Jalagat judicial notice of the finality of a judgment The lower court properly
A court can take in a case that was previously pending and took judicial notice of the
judicial notice of the 2nd case: Complaint for Quieting of Title to real property filed thereafter decided by it. That was all that case resolved by it wherein
finality of a judgment by Gabriel Baguio against the heirs of Mening Jalagat was done by the lower court in decreeing admittedly the same lower
in a case that was the dismissal. Certainly such an order is court dismissed an
previously pending A motion to dismiss was filed by the Jalagats, on the ground not contrary to law. A citation from the identical complaint filed
and thereafter decided of bar by prior judgment. They aver that Baguio filed a case comments of former Chief Justice Moran is over the same property by
by it. According to involving practically the same property and the same parties relevant. Thus: "Courts have also taken the same plantiff against
Chief Justice Moran: (now the heirs of Jalagat). And that the first case, which is judicial notice of previous cases to the same defendants (who
“Courts have also identical to the 2nd case, has been terminated with finality. determine whether or not the case are the legal or forced
taken judicial notice of pending is a moot one, or whether or not a heirs of the now deceased
previous cases to Baguio of course opposed this, stating that for res judicata to previous ruling is applicable in the case Melecio Jalagat, defendant
determine w/n the be a ground for dismissal, it must be evident on the face of under consideration." in the prior case). Such
case pending is a moot the complaint. judicial notice taken by the
one or w/n a previous lower court is sanctioned
ruling is applicable in Lower courts dismissed the case on the ground of res judicata under Rule 129, section 1.
the case under It in effect supplants the
consideration” W/N courts can take judicial notice of a previous case judged evidence on motion that
with finality? YES Rule 133, section 7 Rule
133, section 7, which
provides that "(W)hen a
motion is based on facts
not appearing of record the
court may hear the matter
on affidavits or depositions
presented by the
respective parties, but the
court may direct that the
matter be heard wholly or
 partly on oral testimony or
depositions." When the
ground of the dismissal
motion is, a prior judgment
rendered by the same
court a fact known to the
court and to the parties as
well, as in the case at bar
the taking of judicial notice
of said prior judgment by
the same court constitutes
the very evidence needed
to dispose of the dismissal
motion.

Prieto vs. Arroyo Zeferino Arroyo filed a petition to register several parcels of In the first place, as a general rule, courts
land in his name. Granted. Thereafter, Prieto also filed a are not authorized to take judicial notice in
The general rule is petition for registration of adjoining parcels of land. When the adjudication of cases pending before
that courts are not Arroyo died, his Original Certificate of Title was cancelled and them, of the contents of other cases, even
authorized to take a TCT was issued in the names of his heirs. However, the when such cases have been tried or are
judicial notice in the heirs filed a case wherein they claimed that the description of pending in the same court, and
adjudication of cases the land in the OCT from the TCT was different, and in fact notwithstanding the fact that both cases
pending before them, was less by 157 sqm. They prayed that the description be may have been tried or are actually
of the contents of corrected. Court issued an order to the Register of Deeds to pending before the same judge. Secondly,
other cases, even correct. After this, Prieto filed a case to Annul said order. if appellant had really wanted the court to
when such cases have However, neither he or his counsel appeared so dismissed for take judicial notice of such records, he
been tried or are failure to prosecute. He again filed another case to annult the should have presented the proper request
pending in the same order and prayed for reconveyance of the 157 sqm. Arroyos or manifestation to that effect instead of
court, and filed a MTD based on res judicata. Court granted motion. sending, by counsel, a telegraphic motion
notwithstanding the Hence, this appeal. Prieto contends that the order could not for postponement of hearing, which the
fact that both cases have the effect of a judgment because respondents never court correctly denied. Finally, the point
may have been tried filed any opposition or responsive pleading thereto. raised by counsel is now academic, as no
or are actually pending appeal was taken from the order
with the same judge. Prieto now contends that there is no res judicata and invoked dismissing his first petition, and said order
the court to have been erred in dismissing his first petition to had long become final when the complaint
annul the special proceeding even when he did not appear in in the present action was filed. In addition,
court as no parole evidence is needed to support his petition the contention that the causes of action in
where the matters concerning the land registration the two suits are different is untenable.
proceeding are parts of the record of the court which are well Both are based on the alleged nullity of
within the court’s judicial notice. Special Proceedings in both appellant
seeks that the order of correction of the
W/N the case was properly dismissed based on res title of appellees be set aside. Of no
judicata? – YES material significance is the fact that in the
complaint in the instant case there is an
express prayer for reconveyance of some
157 square meters of land, taken from

Yao Kee vs. Sy-Kiat
it was held that the
court cannot take
judicial notice of
foreign laws so it must
be alleged and proven
as any other fact. In
this case, the SC held
that the heirs failed to
prove the validity
marriage of Sy Kiat
and Yao Kee in
accordance with
Chinese law. It then
applied the doctrine of
“processual
presumption” which
provides that “in the
absence of proof of the
foreign law, it is
presumed to be the
same as the law of the
forum” In effect, the
laws of the PH were
presumed to be the
same as the laws of
China. Since there was
no solemnizing officer,
the marriage cannot
be recognized here in
the Philippines as it is
invalid.
Tabuena vs. Court of
Appeals
GR: Courts are not
authorized to take
judicial notice, in the
Sy Kiat is a Chinese National. He died, leaving behind real and
personal properties in the Philippines, as well as 2 families.
The first is with his common law wife, Asuncion gillego, and
the second with Yao Kee, a fellow Chinese national. Children
of Gillego filed a petition for the grant of letters of
administration alleging that they are the heirs of the
deceased and that they do not recognize the marriage of Sy
Kiat to Yao Kee. Yao Kee and her children opposed this,
alleging that Yao Kee is the lawful wife, and that the children
are legitimate. As proof of their marriage, they presented the
ff: testimony of Yao Kee, her brother, certificate of alien
registration and and certification issued by the Chinese
embassy saying that Sy Kiat and Yao Kee were married in
China. Court said that Yao Kee was the legal wife and children
are legitimate. However, Appellate court reversed, saying
that Yao Kee was not the legal wife since marriage has not
been proven to be valid in accordance with Chinese law.
W/N marriage has been conclusively proven? NO
Peralta sold a lot to Tabernilla. Tabernilla allowed Peralta’s
mother, Timtiman to stay on the land, which she did until she
died. After Timtiman died, Tabuena, her son and half-brother
of Peralta took possession of the lot and claimed to be the
absolute owner of the lot by virtue of succession. Tabuena
refused to surrender the lot to Tabernilla. Tabernilla filed a
appellant as a result of such correction of
title. There being identity of parties,
subject matter and cause of action
between the two cases, the order of
dismissal issued in the first constitutes a
bar to the institution of the second.
The evidence presented by the petitioners
may very well prove the fact of marriage
between Yao Kee and Sy Kiat. However,
the same do not suffice to establish the
validity of said marriage in accordance
with Chinese law or custom.
To establish a valid foreign marriage two
things must be proven:
1. The existence of foreign law as a
question of fact and
2. The alleged foreign evidence by
convincing evidence.
Here, the petitioners failed to discharge
the burden of proving the validity of the
foreign marriage. Moreover, the courts
cannot take judicial notice of foreign law.
Foreign law is a question of fact and must
be alleged and proved as any other
fact.Thus, in the absence of foreign law,
Philippine law shall govern the resolution
of the case. Here, since Yao Kee herself
admitted that there was no solemnizing
officer, as understood in the Philippines,
when the marriage was celebrated such
marriage cannot be recognized here.
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
adjudication of cases complaint to recover the property. TC ordered Tabuena to whether pending before the same judge.
pending before them, vacate the lot. CA affirmed and upheld the use of the trial
of the contents of the court of the testimony of Tabuena given an earlier case to Nevertheless, the court may take judicial
records of other cases, bolster its findings. notice of records of other cases only when,
even when such cases in the absence of objection, with the
have been tried or are Whether it was proper for the court to take judicial knowledge of the opposing party or at the
pending in the same notice of testimony in a previous case with the same request or with the consent of both
court, and court? NO. parties, the case is clearly referred to or
notwithstanding the the original of the records are withdrawn
fact that both cases from the archives and admitted as part of
may have been heard the records of the pending case.
or are actually pending
b before the same Here, the court erred since Tabuena was
judge. unaware that his testimony in a previous
case was being considered in the present
EXCEPTION: in the case. The justification of the appellate
absence of objection, court in admitting the records is that such
and as a matter of was merely corroborative. However, the
convenience to all evidence which the record is sought to be
parties, a court may corroborative is in itself inadmissible
properly treat all or because they were not formally offered
any part of the original into evidence: a letter stating payment
record of a case filed of 600 pesos, a Spanish document and
in its archives as read a deed of conveyance executed by
into the record of a Tabernilla and Timtiman.
case pending before it,
when: Thus, the Supreme Court here reversed
and dismissed the case for recovery of
1. "in the absence of property for failure of plaintiff-respondents
objection," or to substantiate their allegations.

2. "with the knowledge

of the
opposing
party," or

3. "at the request or

with the
consent of the
parties," The
case is
clearly
referred to”
or "the
original or
part of the
records of
 the case are
actually
withdrawn
from the
archives" and
admitted as
part of the
record of the
case then
pending.

People vs. Godoy Godoy was charged with 2 informations of rape and
kidnapping with serious illegal detention. He allegedly raped
his student in physics, Mia Taha. The first instance was at her
cousin’s boarding house, where Godoy pointed a knife at her
and proceeded to rape her. The second instance was when
The Court takes Godoy went to Mia’s parent’s house and asked permission if
judicial cognizance of Mia could accompany him in soliciting funds. He brought Mia
the fact that young to Sunset Garden Motel where he proceeded to rape her over
ladies in rural areas in the span of 3 days. There was a police blotter that Mia was
the Philippines are missing. Mia returned and they went to a medico legal which
required to act with found lacerations in her vagina, concluding that she just had
circumspection and sexual intercourse.
prudence
Godoy of course Denied this. He said they were lovers. To
bolster his claim, he presented 2 love letters delivered to him
in jail while he was detained. The letetrs said that Mia was
only forced to testify by her parents. The delivery of the
letters by Lorna was denied but the jail guard testified as to
the fact of delivery. Several teachers also testified as to the
handwriting of Mia.
W/N the guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt? NO
BPI vs. Court of This case involves a claim for tax refund.
Appeals
In the 1989 Income Tax Return of petitioner it appeared
that it had a refundable amount which it declared was to be
Claim for tax refund / applied as tax credit to the succeeding taxable year of 1990.
Here, the prosecution had failed to prove
beyond reasonable doubt the accused had
sexual intercourse with the complainant
against her will.
The defense of the accused is the
sweetheart theory. Together with the
letters sent by the complainant to the
accused and the several inconsistencies in
the testimony of the complainant are
strong indications of the innocence of the
accused. The letters written by
complainant to the accused are very
revealing to the extent that it can be safely
presumed that the rape charge was merely
an offshoot of the discovery by her parents
of the intimate relationship between her
and accused. In order to avoid retribution
from her parents, together with the moral
pressure exerted upon her by her mother,
she was forced to concoct her account of
the alleged rape.
The Court takes judicial cognizance of the
fact that in rural areas in the Philippines,
young ladies are strictly required to act
with circumspection and prudence. Great
caution is observed so that their
reputations shall remain untainted. Any
breath of scandal which brings dishonor to
their character humiliates their entire
families
As a 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 heard
However, petitioner filed a claim for tax refund because
part of the total re fundable amount was not applied as tax
credit because the company had incurred losses in 1990. A
copy of the Final Adjustment Return for 1990 was attached to
petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration filed before the CTA.
The Return clearly show ed that petit ioner incurred net losses
in 1990.
CTA dismissed the petition on the ground that petitioner
failed to present as evidence its Corporate Annual Income Tax
Return for 1990 to establish the fact that it had yet to credit
the amount to its 1990 tax liability.
CA affirmed the CTA.
With regard to judicial notice, petitioner called the
attention of the Court to a decision rendered by the Tax Court
whereby it found that the same petitioner incurred losses in
1990. The respondents CTA, CA and CIR however contend
that the Supreme Court should not take judicial notice of the
said decision.
W/N judicial notice should be taken of the previous CTA case?
or are actually pending before the same
judge.
Be it as it may, Section 2 of Rule 129 of
the Rules of Court provides that courts
may take judicial notice of matters ought
to be known t o judges because of their
judicial functions.
o In this case, a copy of the CTA decision
was attached to the Petition for Review
filed before the SC.
o The SC stated information showing that
petitioner did not use its 1989 refund to
pay its taxes for 1990.
o Respondents do not dispute the contents
of said Decision, claiming merely that the
court cannot take judicial notice thereof.
In failing to consider the said Return, as
well as the other documentary evidence
presented during the trial, the CA
committed a r eversible error.
Moreover, there can be no just
determination of the present action if we
ignore, on grounds of strict technicality,
the Return submitted before the CTA and
even before this Court.
Substantial justice, equity and fair play
are on the side o f petitioner. Technicalities
and legalisms, however exalted, should
not be misused by the government to keep
money not belonging to it and thereby
enrich itself at the expense of its law -
abiding citizens.
If the State expects its taxpayers to
observe fairn ess and honesty in paying
their taxes, so must it apply the same
standard against itself in refunding excess
payments of such taxes.
Lucido vs. Calupitan Rosales and Zolaivar were execution purchasers of properties The Supreme Court found that the
of Lucido. Public document was executed and signed by all agreement between Lucido and Calupitan
parties, wherein it was stated that w/the consent of Lucido, was one of sale with right to redeem. To
Rosales & Zolaivar sold all their rights and obligations to bolster this finding, the Supreme Court
Pleadings can contain Calupitan. Lucido and Calupitan also executed a loan wherein mentioned the fact that Calupitan himself
admissions of the Calupitan agreed to furnish Lucido a loan in order to redeem considered this transaction as a sale with
parties “that are made the property from R&Z. The agreement states the Calupitan right to redeem as found in his original
in the course of can take possession of the major portion of the land, subject answer to the complaint. This original
proceedings” However, howerver to the right of redemption of Ludico (which is 3 answer was introduced in evidence by
if one wants to present years). the plaintiff Lucido over the objection
amended pleadings Lucido filed an action to recover the property against of Calupitan. Its admission was proper,
(that supersede the Calupitan. TC held that properties should be returned to especially in view of the fact that it was
original pleading that Lucido. signed by Calupitan himself, who was at
may contain an W/N the sale was with right to repurchase? Yes the time acting as his own attorney.
admission), as According to Jones on Evidence, as cited
admissions, it must be by the Supreme Court, pleadings are to be
formally offered in treated as statements of real issues in the
evidence. In this case, cause and hence as admissions of the
the original pleading parties, having weight according to the
that was superseded circumstances of each case. On the same
was admitted into principle, where amended pleadings have
evidence. This was been filed, allegations in the original
used by the court in pleadings are held admissible, but in such
determining that the case the original pleadings can have no
sale in question was a effect unless formally offered in evidence,
pacto de retro sale. as was done in this case.

Torres vs. CA Margarita Torres (M) was married to Claro Santillan. They When a complaint is amended, the
had two children, Vicente and Antoniona . Claro died and Amended Complaint takes the place of the
elaborating on Lucido, Margarita became a widow. A’s children and V are the original. The latter is regarded as
the superseded respondents. abandoned and ceases to perform any
pleading becomes an After Claro’s death, Margarita lived with Leon Arbole (LA) . further function as a pleading. The original
extra- judicial Before getting married, they had a child named Macaria complaint no longer forms part of the
admission, that Torres, the petitioner. M married LA . record. If a party wishes to utilize the
requires a formal offer. This case is centered on the ownership of a lot in Cavite, original complaint, the said party should
Original complain said owned by M. Before LA died, he sold all his rights and interest offer it in evidence. Having been amended,
that Macaria was the in the half portion of the lot to Macaria Torres. the original complaint lost its character as
nearest of kin Vicente then executed an Affidavit claiming possession of a judicial admission, which would have
the lot and a TCT was then issued in the name of the legal required no proof, and became merely an
heirs of M. V and A’s children then filed a complaint for extrajudicial admission, the admissibility of
Forcible Entry against Macaria. which, as evidence, required its formal
The court decided against Macaria, so she appealed to the offer. Contrary to Torres' submission,
CFI . therefore there can be no estoppel by
 Macaria then instituted an action for partition of the lot.
CFI jointly tried the ejectment and partition cases and gave
Macaria 1/3 of the lot and the respondents 2/3.
Macaria asked for a reconsideration which was granted
based on a finding that Macaria was a legitimated child of M
and LA . Her share in the property was increased to two
-thirds of the lot.
V and A’s children appealed to the CA which found that
Macaria was not a legitimated child and reduced her share to
half of the lot.
Macaria is now claiming she and Vicente and Antonina are
brothers and sisters and they are the legal heirs and nearest
of relatives of Maragarita based on a statement found in the
respondents’ original complaint for forcible entry.
It read that the plaintiffs “and the defendant Macaria A
Bautista” are the legal heirs and nearest of kin of M,
who died at Tanza, Cavite. When respondents amended
their complaint, this part “and the defendant Macaria A
Bautista” was deleted
W/N the statement in the original complaint can be treated as
a judicial admission? – NO
Sison vs. People Sison is a Marcos Loyalist. He was charged with the murder of
For photographs to be salcedo a Coryista. Marcos loyalists made an impromptu rally
admissible, they must in Luneta. When the police started to disperse them, Lozano
be identified either by instructed the Marcos loyalists to beat up all the supporters of
the #1) photographer Cory Aquino who infiltrated the rally. A cigarette vendor saw
or #2) any other the loyalists attacking a person in yellow so the cigarette
competent witness vendor removed his shirt. He then saw a group of persons
who can testify to its chasing another man in yellow who happened to be Salcedo.
accuracy. In this case, They kicked and boxed him on different parts of his body.
however, the use of Dead on arrival at Philippine General Hospital. Mauling of
the party against Salcedo as witnessed by bystander and press people who
whom the photograph took pictures. RTC found Sisoin and 4 other guilty of Salcedo’s
is sought to be murder.
admitted, is an Accused denied their participation in the mauling incident.
admission of the When the prosecution presented the photos as evidence,
photograph’s appelants objected to the lack of admissibility because the
accuracy. photographer who took the photos was not
presented.However when accused presented their evidence,
the counsel for accused Neri and Tamayo (Atty. Winlove
Dumayas) used the photos to prove that Neri and Tamayo
were not in the photos. Adopted as part of the exhibits.
Prosecution used the photos to cross-examine, but no
objection was made. Atty. Lazaro at the third hearing objected
to the admissibility of the photos due to the fact that the
person who took them was not prsented
W/N the photos were admissible as evidence?
extrajudicial admission made in the
original complaint, for failure to offer it in
evidence.
Teehankee Dissent: because
respondents subsequently deleted the
same in their amended complaint. The
original complaint, although replaced by
an amended complaint, does not cease to
be a part of the judicial record, not having
been expunged therefrom.
The rule in this jurisdiction is that
photographs, when presented in evidence,
must be identified by the photographer as
to its production and testified as to the
circumstances under which they were
produced. The value of this kind of
evidence lies in its being a correct
representation or reproduction of the
original, and its admissibility is determined
by its accuracy in portraying the scene at
the time of the crime. The photographer,
however, is not the only witness who can
identify the pictures he has taken. The
correctness of the photograph as a faithful
representation of the object portrayed can
be proved prima facie, either by the
testimony of the person who made it or by
other competent witnesses, after which
the court can admit it subject to
impeachment as to its accuracy.
Photographs, therefore, can be identified
by the photographer or by any other
competent witness who can testify to its
exactness and accuracy.
T he use of these photographs by some of
the accused to show their alleged non -

AdamCzuk vs. Plaintiffs filed an action against defendants for personal
Holloway injuries and property damage arising out of a collision
Car collision at the between a car owned and operated by plaintiff, Jack
intersection Adamczuk, and a car driven by defendant, Elmer Holloway.
in addition to the Adamczuk was driving southwardly while Holloway was
requirement that a driving to the east
photograph must be The assignment of error which appellant stresses is based
identified or verified upon the refusal of the court to admit in evidence a certain
(made part of some photograph of the locus of the accident and the approach to it
qualified person’s on Highway Route 6.
testimony), it must When plaintiff, Jack Adamczuk, was on the stand, he was
also be relevant to the shown "Exhibit No. 3" and he identified the roads and
fact in issue. In this buildings appearing in the picture and stated that " the
case, the Court held conditions represented by that picture truly represent the
that the exclusion of condi tions of the crossing at the time of this accident EXCEPT
the photograph was for the fact of daylight or dark ." Then the exhibit was offered
justified because it in evidence.
was On cross - examination , it became apparent that the
unnecessary/irrelevant witness did not know who took the picture or when it was
. taken .
o He stated that when the picture was taken the location of
the camera was on route 6 but he did not know at what
distance from the intersection .
o He did not know whether the photographer tilted the
camera up or down when the picture was taken, and he did
not know whether the photographer "endeavored to
accentuate certain parts of the picture."
The court then sustained the objection to the picture's
introduction.
It was offered in evidence again when the Civil Engineer
and County Surveyor, was on the stand. This w itness was
asked if he took photographs and developed them. He
answered: "Very little."
There is no proof of who took it, or any identity as to the
picture, other than the physical view thereon it isn't shown
where the camera was standing, under what conditions it was
taken, and whether it was taken with a view to distorting it or
n
Important to AdamCzuks case bec it shows that person could
participation in the crime is an admission
of the exactness and accuracy thereof.
That the photographs are faithful
representations of the mauling incident
was affirmed when appellants de los
Santos, Pacadar and Tan identified
themselves therein and gave reasons for
their presence thereat.
The rule is well settled that a photograph
may be put in evidence if relevant to the
issue and if verified. It does not have to be
verified by the taker. Its verification
depends on the competency of the
verifying witness and as to that the trial
judge must in the first instance decide,
subject to reversal for substantial error.
The map or photograph must first to be
admissible, be made a part of some
qualified person's testimony. Someone
must stand forth as its testimonial sponsor
in other words, it must be verified. There is
nothing anomalous or exceptional in this
requirement of verification it is simply the
exaction of those testimonial qualities
which are required equally of all witnesses
the application merely takes a different e
photographed and is competent to testify
that the photograph correctly represents it,
it should, if relevant, be admitted.
 see to the west, if he held his head at a 45 degree angle, only
a distance of about 200 feet. The engineer testified that a
person at the intersection had a clear, unobstructed view to
the west of 793 feet. Adamczuk, in explaining why he did not
see the car coming from the west, said that he had his head
turned at a 45 degree angle. The defendants contend that
this excuse is of no avail to him and that had he held his head
in a normal position he would have had an unobstructed view
to the west of nearly 800 feet.
Whether the photograph should be admitted as
evidence? NO.
State of Washigton vs. Tousin received monthly welfare checks from the state of
Tatum Washington. In February 1960, Tousi n did not receive his
Regiscope, forgery check (the checks were generally mailed to a rooming house
in Pasco where Tousin resided.)
The court set out the  Ralph Tatum resided at the same place.
standards for  Tousin's February check was endorsed and cashed at
authentication of a Sherman's Food Store in Pasco by someone other than him .
photograph (for its  An employee of the store, Caroline Pentecost, testified that
admissibility) to wit: although she could not specifically recall the transaction, the
“some witness must initials appearing on the face of the check were hers. She also
be able to give some testified that whenever a check was presented to her for
indication as to 1) payme nt at the store, the store manager had instructed her
when 2) where and 3) to initial it and then insert it into a "Regiscope" machine. This
under what machine is designed to simultaneously photograph, through
circumstances was the two separate lenses, both the check and the person facing
picture taken AND that the machine.
the picture accurately  When it was discovered that the endorsement of the payee
portrays the subject was a forgery, the Regiscope film of the transaction was sent
illustrated. to the Regiscope distributor in Portland to be developed.
 The processed film shows both the check and the person of
appellant (from his waist up ) with the food store in the
background.
 Upon trial, both the negative and the print therefrom were
admitted in evidence, over Tatum’s objection.
 He was then convicted of the crime of forgery and was
sentenced to life imprisonment as a habitual criminal.
W/N regiscope films should be admitted in evidence? YES
For a photograph to be admissible in
evidence, the authentication required by
courts is that some witness (not
necessarily the photographer) be able to
give some indication as to when, where,
and under what circumstances the
photograph was taken, and that the
photograph accurately portray the subject
or subjects illustrated. The photograph
need only be sufficiently accurate to be
helpful to the court and the jury.
Witness Pentecost testified that she
recognized the background shown in the
picture as that of the food store, and, as
mentioned previously, she also testified as
to the store's standard procedure of
"regiscoping" each individual who cashed
a check at the store. Phillip Dale testified
at length concerning the Regiscope
process. The testimony of these two
witnesses taken together amounted to a
sufficient authentication to warrant the
admission of the photograph (both the
print and the negative) into evidence.
The authentication supplied by the
testimony summarized above, of course,
did not preclude Tatum from attempting to
prove that the individual portrayed was
someone other than appellant, that the
photograph was inaccurate in one or more
respects, that appellant was somewhere
else at the moment the photograph was
taken, or any other such defense. But
these arguments go to the weight rather
 than to the admissibility of the exhibits in
question. In our opinion, the Regiscope
exhibits, coupled with the other evidence
produced by the state, sufficed to establish
a prima facie case of first-degree forgery.
The fact that Dale was not a professional
photographer and may have not
understood all of the technical details of
the process, did not, from an evidentiary
standpoint, disqualify him from expressing
an opinion in his testimony as to the
possibility of altering a given Regiscope
print. In view of witness Dale's testimony
that he personally had developed "four to
five hundred thousand" individual
Regiscope films, we hardly think that the
trial court abused its discretion in this
regard.

Maritima entered into a contract with Allied Union where The best evidence on the cost of The requisites for the
Compania Maritima the latter agreed to render stevedoring services for a month, equipment (by reason of depreciation) admissibility of secondary
vs. Allied Free renewable upon agreement, but subject to termination if the would have been the SALES INVOICE evidence when the original
Workers Union union failed to render proper service. The union agreed to be instead of the oral testimony of Teves, the is in the custody of the
paid for its arrastre services which is the hauling of the cargo branch manager. party:
Presented the auditors from the vessel to the place of the consignee or shipper,
report on the loss of while it shall be the owner or consignee who shall pay for the The rule that “when the original consists of (1) opponent’s possession
freight revenues; stevedoring services since according to them the bill of lading numerous accounts or other documents
admissible provided that the unloading of the cargo shall be at the ship’s which cannot be examined in court without (2) reasonable notice,
expense. great loss of time and the fact sought to be
Meanwhile, Maritima refused to pay for the union’s established from them is only the general (3) satisfactory proof of
stevedoring services on the basis of the contract entered result of the whole ,” the original writings existence,
between them. Since, the union workers are in dire need of need not be produced, cannot be invoked
work, they continued rendering their services despite the in this case. (4) failure or refusal of
knowledge that they are not being paid for their stevedoring
opponent to produce the
services. Maritima entered into a stevedoring agreement For one, the voluminous character of the original in court.
with the Iligan Stevedoring Association. Because of this, records, on which the accountant’s reports
the union picketed and prevented Iligan Stevedoring from were based, was not duly established. For
performing its services. As to the first element, it is
another, the records on which the
Maritima retaliated by filing an action with the union for the enough that the
accounts should be made accessible to the
rescission of the contract, for injunction and for circumstances are such as
adverse party so that the correct ness of
damages. The company attached an auditor’s report to indicate that the original
the summary may be tested on cross -
that the company lost freight revenues. is in the actual possession
examination.
 The trial court rendered money judgment against the union. of the adversary.
 The appeal made by the union attacked the manner in On the other hand, the rule that should
which the tri al court arrived with the sum of 450,000 which be applied is the general rule that “an
Maritima allegedly suffered because of lost freightage, audit made by, or the testimony of, a
inefficiency in the services of the union workers, among other private auditor, is inadmissible in evidence
 causes attributable to the union.
 The union alleges that the award of damages was
improper since the auditor’s report is mere hearsay.
WON damages should be awarded on the ground of the
auditor’s report on which they were based were hearsay?
Villa Rey Transit vs. Jose Villarama was an operator of a bus transportation,
Ferrer under the business name of Villa Rey Transit, pursuant to
certificates of public convenience granted him by the Public
Service Commission which authorized him to operate. He sold
the two certificates of public convenience to the Pangasinan
Transportation Company (Pantranco), with the condition,
among others, that the seller " shall not for a period of 10
years...apply for any TPU service identical or competing with
the buyer ."
On that same day when the contract of sale was executed,
the parties immediately applied with the PSC for its approval,
with a prayer for the issuance of a provisional authority in
favor of the vendee Corporation to operate the service
therein involved.
Barely three months later, Villa Rey Transit was organized
with Villarama and his wife as incorporators. In less than a
month after its registration with the SEC, the corporation
bought five certificates of public convenience , buses, tools
and equipment from one Valentin Fernando.
Before the PSC could take final action on said application for
approval of sale however, the Sheriff of Manila levied on two
of the five certificates of public convenience involved---this is
pursuant to a writ of execution issued by the Court of First
Instance of Pangasinan in favor of Eusebio Ferrer, a judgment
creditor of Fernando. A public sale was then conducted by the
Sheriff of the said two certificates of public convenience and
Ferrer was the highest bidder, and a certificate of sale was
issued in his name. He eventually sold the certificates of
public convenience to Pantranco. PSC thereafter issued a
ruling awarding provisional right to operate to Pantranco. The
Corporation took issue with this ruling and elevated the
matter to the Supreme Court which ruled that it should be the
Corporation who must provisionally operate the lines until the
dispute on ownership is settled by the proper court. The
as proof of original records, books of
accounts, reports or the like.”
The general rule cannot be relaxed in this
case since they failed to a preliminary
showing as to the difficulty or impossibility
attending the production of the records in
court and their examination and analysis
as evidence by the court.
Section 5, Rule 130 provides for the
requisites for admissibility of secondary
evidence when:
(1)opponent’s possession of the original
(2)the notice to opponent to produce the
original,
(3) satisfactory proof of existence,
(4) failure or refusal of opponent to
produce the original in court.
In this case, such requisites have been
complied with. Villarama has practically
admitted the second and fourth. As to the
third, he admitted its previous existence in
the files of the Corporation and had even
seen some of them. As to the first, he said
that the originals were missing and the
Corporation is no longer in possession of it.
However, it is not necessary for a party
seeking to introduce secondary evidence
to show that the original is in the
possession of possession of his adversary.
It is enough that the circumstances are
such as to indicate that the writing is in his
possession or under his control. Neither is
it required that the party entitled to the
custody of the instrument should, on being
notified to produce it, admit having it in his
possession. Hence, secondary evidence is
admissible where he denies having it in his
possession. The party calling for such
evidence may introduce a copy thereof as
in the case of loss. For, among the
exceptions to the best evidence rule is
when the original has been lost, destroyed
 Corporation then filed a petition to declare the sheriff’s sale
void.
Pantranco contends that the Corporation and Jose
Villarama are one and the same, and consequently, the non-
competition clause embodied in the deed of sale entered into
by Jose Villarama is also binding to the Corporation.
To prove its contention, Pantranco presented photostatic
copies of the ledgers and vouchers which showed the
comingling of Villarama’s personal funds and those of the
corporation’s. Villarama assailed the admissibility of said
ledgers and vouchers, contending that they have no
evidentiary value as they are merely photocopies of originals
and thus are not the best evidence
1. Whether or not the photostatic ledgers and vouchers are
admissible? YES.
Michael & Co v. E. Michael and Co. claims to be a successor of a sale with a
Enriquez right to repurchase made by Enriquez in favor of Michael and
E. Michael & Co. by virtue of an instrument, duly executed
????? wtf happened and delivered to it, transferring the land subject of this
litigation. It alleged that the right to repurchase had expired,
thus, the consolidation of ownership in the petitioner
company.
During the trial, MCI attempted to prove two things which the
trial court prevented it from doing: (1) the execution and
delivery of the conveyance transferring to it the land in
question and (2) the fact that the instrument so executed and
delivered was lost
There were questions, however, which were well-framed and
whose answers should be allowed, the trial court nevertheless
sustained objections to it and the evidence sought to be
adduced was excluded. Thus, when the CFI of Cebu dismissed
the case on the ground of lack of cause of action, the
petitioner company filed this appeal.
First , it being his purpose to lay the basis for the introduction
of secondary evidence as to its contents .
The plaintiff takes exception to the rulings of the court
respecting the admission of evidence tending to establish the
execution and delivery and the subsequent loss of the
document in question, thus laying the proper foundation for
bringing up the rulings of the court on those matters
or cannot be produced in court in question
must be deemed to have been lost, as
even the Corporation admits such loss.
Hence, there can be no doubt as to the
admissibility in evidence of the said
photocopies of vouchers & ledgers.
Trial courts do well in refusing at all times
to permit the introduction of incompetent
evidence and particularly secondary
evidence of the contents of written
instruments unless the facts required by
the Code of Civil Procedure as the
conditions precedent for such evidence are
clearly shown to exist. Section 321 of the
Code provides:
If it has been lost, proof of the loss must
first be made before evidence can be
given of its contents. Upon such proof
being made, together with proof of the
due execution of the writing, its contents
may be proved by a copy or by a recital of
its contents in some
As will be seen in this section, the writing
itself must be produced unless it has been
lost or destroyed in which case, before its
contents may be proved by other
evidence, it must be shown by the party
offering secondary evidence that: 1.) that
the document was duly executed and
delivered, where delivery is necessary, and
2.) that it has been lost or destroyed.
The execution or delivery of the document
maybe established by the person or
persons, who executed it, by the person
before whom its execution was
acknowledged, or by any person who was
present and saw it executed and delivered
 or who, after its execution and delivery,
saw it and recognized the signatures or by
a person to whom the parties to the
instruments have previously confessed the
execution thereof. The destruction of the
instrument may be proved by any person
knowing the fact. The loss may be shown
by any person who knew the fact of its
loss, or by anyone who has made, in the
judgment of the court, a sufficient
examination in the place or places where
the document or pares of similar character
are usually kept by the person in whose
custody the document lost was, and has
been unable to find it or who has made
any other investigation which is sufficient
to satisfy the Court that the document was
indeed lost.
If it appears, on an attempt to prove the
loss, that the document is in fact in
existence, then the proof of loss or
destruction fails and secondary evidence is
inadmissible unless section 322 of the Civil
code of Procedure should be applicable.
After proper proof of the due execution and
delivery and its loss or destruction, oral
evidence maybe given of its contents by
any person who signed the document, or
who read it, or heard it read knowing, or it
being proved from other sources, that the
document so read was the one in question.
Such evidence may also be given by any
person who was present when the
contents of the document was being talked
over between the parties thereto to such
an extent as to give him reasonably full
information as to its contents or the
contents maybe proved by any person to
whom the parties to the instrument have
confessed or stated the contents thereof
or by a copy thereof or by a recital of its
contents in some authentic document.

De Vera vs. Aguilar The petitioners De Vera and respondent Leona Aguilar, Secondary evidence is admissible when
married to respondent Aguilar, are the children and heirs of the original documents were actually lost
the late Marcosa Bernabe. During her lifetime, she owned the or destroyed.
disputed parcel of land in Camalig, Maycauayan, Bulacan. Two But prior to the introduction of such
of the petitioners, Basilio and Felipe, mortgaged said land to
Atty. Bordador. When the mortgage matured, the Aguilar
spouses redeemed it from Atty. Bordador and were in turn
sold to them by Marcosa, evidenced by a deed of absolute
sale. Thereafter, an OCT was issued in their name. Three
years later, the De Veras wrote to the Aguilar spouses
demanding for partition of the disputed land claiming that as
children of Marcosa, they were co-owners of the property.
They further claimed that the Aguilar spouses had resold the
property to Marcosa. The Aguilar spouses denied all these
allegations by the De Veras.
The De Veras filed a suit for reconveyance of the lot and
the trial court ruled in favor of the petitioners after admitting,
over the objection of the Aguilar spouses, a photocopy of
an alleged deed of sale executed by them in favor of
Marcosa.
The CA reversed upon finding that the loss or destruction of
the original deed of sale has not been duly proven by the
petitioners rendering the photocopy of the deed of sale as
inadmissible in evidence.
W/N petitioners have proven the loss of the original deed of
sale so as to allow the admission of the Xeroxed copy of the
deed of sale? ( NO )
secondary evidence, the proponent must
establish the former existence of the
instrument. The correct order of proof is as
follows: (1) existence, (2) execution, (3)
loss, (4) contents, although this order may
be changed in the discretion of the court.
The sufficiency of proof offered as a
predicate for the admission of an alleged
lost deed lies within the judicial discretion
of the trial court under all the
circumstances of the particular case. A
reading of the decision of the trial court
shows that it merely ruled on the existence
and due execution of the alleged deed of
sale dated April 28, 2959. It failed to
look into the facts and circumstances
surrounding the loss or destruction of
the original copies of the alleged
deed of sale.
The Notary Public who notarized the do
cument testified that the alleged deed has
4-5 original copies. Hence, all originals
must be accounted for before secondary
evidence can be given of anyone. This
petitioners failed to do. They only
accounted for 3 to 5 copies.
In establishing the execution of a
document, the same may be established
by the person or persons who executed it,
by the person before whom its execution
was acknowledged, or by any person who
was present and saw it executed or who,
after its execution saw it and recognized
the signatures or by a person to whom the
parties to the instrument had previously
confessed the execution thereof. The Court
agreed with the findings of the trial court
that the petitioners have sufficiently
established the due execution of the
alleged deed of sale through the testimony
of the notary public.
The destruction of the instrument may be
proved by any person knowing the fact.
The loss may be shown by any person who
knew the fact of its loss, or by anyone who
made, in the judgment of the court, a
sufficient examination in the place or

NPC vs. Codilla M/V Dibena Win, a vessel of foreign registry owned and
operated by Bangpai Shipping Co., allegedly bumped and
Whether or not the damaged the power barge of the National Power
photocopies were Corporation which was then moored at the Cebu
considered electronic International Port. Consequently, NAPOCOR filed before the
documentts RTC a complaint for damages against Bangpai for the
alleged damages caused on its power barge. Thereafter,
NAPOCOR filed an amended complaint, impleading Wallem
Shipping Inc., contending that the latter is a ship agent of
Bangpai. Both Bangpai and Wallem filed a motion to dismiss,
however, it was denied.
After adducing evidence during the trial, NAPOCOR filed a
formal offer of evidence consisting of Exhibits A to V together
with the sub-marked portions thereof. On the other hand,
Bangpai and Wallem excluding from the records Exhibits A, C,
D, E, H and its sub-markings I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P. It argued that
NAPOCOR has been given every opportunity to present the
originals of the photocopies of the documents it offered, but it
never produced the originals. Also, the photocopies do not
constitute as electronic evidence as the information was not
received, recorded, retrieved or produced electronically.
Moreover, it was not authenticated. Finally, the required
affidavit to prove the admissibility and evidentiary weight of
the alleged electronic evidence was not executed, much less
presented in evidence. Therefore, the photocopies must be
stricken off the record. Aside from being not properly
identified by any competent witness, the loss of the principals
was not established by any competent proof. NAPOCOR filed
a motion for reconsideration, however, it was denied. Petition
for certiorari filed with the CA was likewise denied.
Petitioner insists that the photocopies presented as
documentary evidence actually constitute electronic evidence
based on its own premise that an electronic evidence is NOT
limited to information that is received, recorded, retrieved or
prod uced electronically. Rather, the petitioner maintains that
an electronic document can also refer to other modes of
written expression that is produced electronically, such as
photocopies. They attempted to justify the admission of the
photocopies, contendi ng that photocopies offered are
equivalent to the original of the document.
places where the document or papers of
similar character are usually kept by the
person in whose custody the document
lost was, and has been unable to find it or
who has made any other investigation
which is sufficient to satisfy the court that
the instrument is indeed lost.
The pieces of documentary evidence by
NAPOCOR were not properly identified by
any competent witness. As correctly
pointed out by Bangpai, the witnesses did
not have personal knowledge of and
participation in the preparation and
making of the pieces of documentary
evidence. The pieces of the documentary
evidence were merely photocopies of
purported documents or papers. Section 3
of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court states
that when the subject of inquiry are the
contents of documents, no evidence shall
be admissible other than the original
documents themselves, except in certain
cases specifically enumerated therein.
NAPOCOR has not shown that the non-
presentation or non-production of its
original pieces of documentary evidence
falls under such exceptions. The pieces of
documentary evidence do not constitute
as electronic evidence. The information
therein were not received, retrieved, or
produced electronically. NAPOCOR has not
properly authenticated such evidence as
electronic documents. Lastly, it has not
established by affidavit the admissibility
and evidentiary weight of the said
documentary evidence.
The court was correct in rejecting the
photocopies as they violate the best
evidence rule and therefore are of no
probative value being incompetent p ieces
of evidence. Petitioner should have
resented the originals of the documents
instead of the photocopies it offered as
evidence, or at least laid the predicate for
the admission of the said photocopies.
 1. WON the photocopies of documents should be admitted?
(NO)
2. WON the photocopies are equivalent to the original
documents based on the Rules of Electronic Evidence? (NO)

People vs. Tan – Xerox ok

Seiler vs. Lucas Film – star wars

People vs. Tandoy – dangerous drugs act; Xerox copy of marked bill

US vs. Gregorio and Balistoy – there was allegedly a sale of a piece of land; what was presented was only a copy of the original and not the original

Fiscal of Pampanga vs. Reyes and Guevarra – libelous article, Ing Mangumasid

Vda. Corpus de Brabangco – lost the deed of sale during the war, witness presented