17 - Baguio v VDA De Jalagat (1971) GR NO.

L- 28100

GABRIEL BAGUIO, plaintiff-Appellant TEOFILA L. VDA. DE JALAGAT, for herself and in

representation of her minor children, DOMINADOR, LEA and
TEONIFE all surnamed JALAGAT; ANABELLA JALAGAT
and EMMANUEL JALAGAT - defendants-appellees. (widow and
children of Mening Jalagat)

IV. What Need Not Be Proved (A. Judicial Notice)

FACTS
· Complaint for quieting of title to real property was filed by PLAINTIFF on Feb 14, 1966.

· Motion to Dismiss was filed by the DEFENDANTS on March 7, 1966 on the ground that the cause of action is
barred by a prior judgment.

· The argument of the DEFENDANTS was that the instant case or complaint is identical to or the same as that of
Civil Case No. 1574 which is for Recovery of Possession and Ownership of Real Estate filed by the same
PLAINTIFF against Mening Jalagat, now deceased and whose legal heirs and successors are the defendants in this
case.

· The two cases involves the same property and practically the same parties. Moreover, the previous case which is
Civil Case No. 1574, was already decided upon and was duly and finally terminated by a court order dismissing
PLAINTIFF’s complaint dated Dec. 6, 1955.

· The argument of the PLAINTIFF is that in order that the ground for prior judgment or res judicata to suffice as a
basis of dismissal it must be apparent on the face of the complaint. PLAINTIFF alleged that there was nothing in the
complaint from which a conclusion of prior judgment may be inferred.

Court of First Instance of Misamis:

· Acting on the motion and taking judicial notice of its previous judgment, the lower court dismissed the present
complaint on the ground that plaintiff's cause of action is barred by a prior judgement which this Court finds to be
well-founded as it has already dismissed plaintiff's complaint in Civil Case No. 1574.

· The Court's previous dismissal of Civil Case No. 1574 has the effect of an adjudication upon the
merits and consequently is a bar to any subsequent action against the same parties over the same
issues and the same subject-matter by the same plaintiff.. Hence, this appeal.

ISSUE: WON Court of First Instance of Misamis was correct in finding that there was res judicata by taking
judicial notice of its previous judgment

HELD: YES.

In the six page brief of the PLAINTIFF, there was no denial as to the truth of the statement that there was a previous
dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint against the defendants.

There was also no denial either of the property involved being the same and of the finality of the decision in the
previous case which would show that PLAINTIFF’s claim was devoid of any support in law.
It ought to be clear even to the PLAINTIFF that under the circumstances, the lower court certainly could take
judicial notice of the finality of judgment in a case that was previously pending and thereafter decided by it.

That was all that was done by the lower court in decreeing the dismissal. Certainly, such an order is not contrary to
law. The Supreme Court quoted Chief Justice Morgan, who said: “Courts have also taken judicial notice of previous
cases to determine whether or not the case pending is a moot one or whether or not the previous ruling is applicable
in the case under consideration.”