Prieto vs Arroyo FACTS Zeferino Arroyo Sr.

filed a petition for registration of several parcels of land, on the same year and in the same court Gabriel Prieto filed a petition for registration of an adjoining parcel of land. The heirs of Zeferino Arroyo Sr. filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur in which they claimed that the technical description of their Transfer Certificate of Title did not conform to the Original Certificate of Title. The court granted their petition and issued an order granting the same. On that same year Prieto filed in the same court a petition to annul said order. At the hearing neither he nor his counsel appeared. Consequently, the trial court issued an order dismissing the petition for failure to prosecute. A motion for reconsideration was denied, no appeal on the judgment was availed. On 1958 or 2 years after, Prieto filed against the same defendants the present action to annul the same proceedings in the trial court, the defendants moves to dismiss the case on the grounds of res judicata. The court granted the motion, thus these appeal. ISSUE Whether or not the court can take judicial notice of the cases that was filed before them. RULING As a general rule, in the adjudication of cases the courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of cases pending before them, even when such cases have been tried before them, of the contents 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. The contention of the appellant that the court should have taken judicial notice of the previous case filed by the Zeferino Arroyo Sr. which was filed in the same court as the basis of their is without merit as previously stated Courts have no authority to take judicial notice of cases that was resolved by them, if appellant had really wanted the court to take judicial notice, he should have presented a proper request or manifestation. Appealed order is affirmed.

Yao Kee vs Sy-Gonzales FACTS Sy Kiat, a Chinese national died leaving behind real and personal properties in Caloocan City. His children from his wife Asuncion Gillego filed a petition for grant of letters and administration of property. The petition was opposed by Yao Kee, who contends that she is the lawful wife Sy Kiat and that they were married in China and had children who are part of the opposition. The trial court rendered a decision finding the marriage of Sy Kiat to Yao Kee to be lawful thereby rendering their children legitimate. On appeal the CA modified the decision, declaring the children of Sy Kiat with Asuncion Gillego and Yao Kee to be his acknowledged natural children. Thus this appeal, appellant contends that the CA erred in declaring the marriage has not been proven valid in accordance with the laws of the Peoples Republic of China. The appellant presented documentary and testimonial evidence to prove the fact of marriage between her and Sy Kiat. The court ruled however that the same is not sufficient to establish the validity of said marriage in accordance with Chinese law or custom. In the case at bar petitioners did not present any competent evidence relative to the law and custom of China on marriage. The testimonies of the witnesses cannot be considered as proof of Chinas law or custom not only because they are self-serving but also because they are not competent to testify on the subject matter. ISSUE Petitioners contend that contrary to the Court of Appeals ruling they are not duty bound to prove the Chine law on marriage as judicial notice has been take by this Court in the case of Sy Joc Lieng vs Sy Quia. RULING This contention is erroneous. Well established is the principle that Philippine courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws. They must be alleged and proved as any other fact. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the Court has indeed taken judicial notice of the law of China on marriage in the aforecited case, the petitioners have not shown any proof that the Chinese law or custom obtaining in the case Sy Joc Lieng which was celebrated in 1847 is still the same applied with that of Sy Kiat to Yao Kee which took place in 1931 or 84 years later. CA decision affirmed.