ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION

Angeles City
School of Law

EVIDENCE
Instructor: Judge Jonel S. Mercado

MANALOTO, AIRES S.

Quiz 1 January 14, 2023

TRUE OR FALSE

In this Quiz 1, involved are general principles in evidence. The student should
determine if the statements in this quiz were stated completely or accurately. If complete
and accurate, write beside the number letter, or first word of the statement, summary or
doctrine the word “true” and if not, state the word “false,” without explaining.

1. Q. What matters need not be proved in court?

TRUE A. Matters of which the court has taken judicial notice and judicial admissions do not require
proof.

2. Q. Define judicial notice.

TRUE A. Judicial notice is a process whereby the court takes note of certain facts which are capable of
being known to a veritable certainty by consulting sources of indisputable accuracy, thereby relieving one party
of the burden of producing evidence to prove these facts. (STEVEN H. GIFIS, LAW DICTIONARY 112
[1975]). Judicial notice may be mandatory or discretionary.

3. Q. When is judicial notice mandatory?

A. A court shall take judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of: (SIP NTG)

TRUE 1) STATES. The existence and territorial extent of states, their political history, forms of
government and symbols of nationality.

TRUE 2) INTERNATIONAL LAW. The law of nations, the admiralty and maritime courts of the world
and their seals.

TRUE 3) PHILIPPINES. The political constitution and history of the Philippines, the official acts of the
legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the National Government of the Philippines.

TRUE 4) LAWS OF NATURE.

TRUE 5) MEASURE OF TIME.

TRUE 6) Geographical divisions

1
 4. Q Can a court take judicial notice of foreign laws?

FALSE A. Yes. Courts can take judicial notice of foreign laws.

5. Q Can a court take judicial notice of ordinances?

FALSE A. As a general rule yes, since an ordinance is an official act of government officers.

6. Q. In a land dispute case, was it proper for the Court of Appeals take judicial notice of the Senate
Report regarding the Maysilo Estate?

TRUE A. Yes since it is an official act of the legislative department of the Philippines. (S1 R129).
Nonetheless, the Senate Report shall not be conclusive upon the courts, but will be examined and evaluated
based on its probative value. That there is such a document as the Senate Report was all that was conceded by
the Court of Appeals. It did not allow the Senate Report to determine the decision on the case. (CLT Realty
Dev't Corp. v. Hi- Grade Feeds Corp., 2 September 2015, Perez, J.)

7. Q. Should a court take judicial notice that Quezon City was established only in 1939?

TRUE A. Yes, since Quezon City was established by virtue of a charter or law which is an official act of
the legislature. (Bernas v. Estate of Yu Han Yat, 15 August 2018, Caguioa, J.).

8. Q Can the Court of Appeals take judicial notice of cases previously decided by it?

TRUE A. Yes. No. It is well settled that, as a general rule, courts are authorized to take judicial notice, in
the adjudication of cases pending before them, of the contents of the records of other cases, moreso when such
cases have been tried or are pending in the same court, and because of the fact that both cases have been heard
or are actually pending before the same judge.

9. Q. Malayan Insurance Company, as subrogee of the consignee, filed an action for damages
against Petitioner Asian Terminals, Inc. Malayan alleged that it was the negligence of ATI's stevedores in
unloading the cargo which caused the loss and damage to the insured cargo. The RTC ruled in favor of Malayan
Insurance. ATI argued that the trial court should have taken judicial notice of Section 7.01, Article VII of the
Management Contract for cargo handling services it entered with the Philippine Ports Authority, which limits
petitioner's liability to P5,000.00 per package. Is ATI's argument correct?

TRUE A. No. The Management Contract entered into by petitioner and the PPA is clearly not among the
matters which the courts can take judicial notice of. It cannot be considered an official act of the executive
department. The PPA, which was created by virtue of Presidential Decree No. 857, as amended, is a
government-owned and controlled corporation in charge of administering the ports in the country. Obviously,
the PPA was only performing a proprietary function when it entered into a Management Contract with
petitioner. As such, judicial notice cannot be applied. (Asian Terminals Inc. v. Malayan Insurance Co., 4 April
2011, Del Castillo, J.)

10. Q. When is judicial notice discretionary?

TRUE A. A court may take judicial notice of matters which are of public knowledge, or are capable of
unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions. (S2 R129).

2
 11. Q. A resident American, who came here from Massachusetts, made a Will where he stated that,
in form, it is executed in accordance with Massachusetts law. The Will, instituting his Filipino widow as his sole
heir, would not be valid in form under Philippine law. Upon his death, the widow presented the Will to the
Regional Trial Court of Manila. Probate was objected to by distant relatives of the testator in California. The

Judge had studied in Harvard, and was familiar with Massachusetts law. Without the introduction of formal
evidence, he granted probate, stating that the Will was, indeed, executed in accordance with Massachusetts law.

How should the matter be resolved on appeal? Explain your answer. (80 Bar Q13ed)

TRUE A. On appeal, the order granting allowance of the will should be reversed.

The Supreme Court has held that a Philippine court cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws which have
to be proved in evidence just like any other fact.

Here what was involved was a foreign law and no evidence regarding the foreign law was adduced. The
fact that the judge was familiar with Massachusetts law will not dispense with the requirement of evidence since
a judge's personal knowledge is not equivalent to judicial notice.

12. Q. May a court take judicial notice of a resolution by the board of governors of the Development
Bank of the Philippines authorizing its branch managers to sign the verification and certification against forum
shopping?

TRUE A. No. Courts are not, after all, expected to take judicial notice of corporate board resolutions or a
corporate officers authority to represent a corporation. The resolution should have been attached to the petition
for certiorari. Hence the dismissal of the petition was proper. (DBP v. Court of Appeals, 7 October 2004).

13. Q. May a court take judicial notice that vehicular accidents cause whiplash injuries?

TRUE A. No. This proposition is not public knowledge, or is capable of unquestionable demonstration,
or ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions. Judges have no expertise in the field of
medicine. They are only tasked to apply and interpret the law on the basis of the parties' pieces of evidence and
their corresponding legal arguments. (Dela Llana v. Biong, 4 December 2013, Brion, J.)

14. Q May courts take judicial notice that personality disorders are generally incurable?

FALSE A. Yes, since this is a matter that courts are mandated to take judicial notice.

15. Q. X sued Panasia Banking Inc. Panasia, contending that the bank had allowed his son to make
unauthorized withdrawal from him account. The complaint was later amended to include Bank of Commerce on
the allegation that there was a merger between Bank of Commerce and Panasia. In its judgment the trial court
held Bank of Commerce solidarily liable with Panasia for damages. In response to Bank of Commerce's denial
that it had merged with Panasia and had bought only selected assets, the trial court said that common sense
dictates that a bank will not just cherry pick assets. Was the trial court's decision to hold Bank of Commerce
solidarily liable proper?

TRUE A. No. The RTC' s assumption that Bank of Commerce had merged with Panasia and had thereby
taken over all of the assets and liabilities of the latter, including that for the negligent handling of X's account,
was unfounded. Such assumption had neither factual nor legal support in the records. Instead, the RTC should
have required X to present evidence of the merger, including its terms, in of the petitioner's specific denial of the
same.

3
 Merger was an act that could not be assumed; its details must be shown, and its effects must be based on
the terms adopted by the parties concerned (through their respective boards of directors) and approved by the
proper government office or agency regulating the merging parties. In effect the RTC took judicial notice of the
merger between Bank of Commerce and Panasia Banking, Inc. Contrary to the findings and conclusions of the
RTC, the merger of Bank of Commerce and Panasia was not of common knowledge. It was overly
presumptuous for the RTC to thereby assume the merger because the element of notoriety as basis for taking
judicial notice of the merger was loudly lacking. (Bank of Commerce v. Dela Cruz, 14 August 2017, Bersamin,
J.).

16. Q. Is a hearing required before a court may take judicial notice of a matter?

TRUE A. Yes. Whether under S1 or S2 of R129, a hearing is required before the court may take judicial
notice of a matter. (S3 R129). This is to allow the parties to be heard on the matter.

TRUE a) DURING THE PRE-TRIAL AND THE TRIAL During the pre-trial and the trial, the court, the
court motu proprio or upon motion, shall hear the parties on the propriety of taking judicial notice of any
matter.
TRUE b) BEFORE JUDGMENT OR ON APPEAL The court, motu proprio or upon motion, may take
judicial notice of any matter and shall hear the parties thereon if such matter is decisive of a material issue in the
case. (S3 R129).
17. Q. What is a judicial admission?
TRUE A. A judicial admission is an admission, oral or made by a party in the course of the proceedings
in the same case. It does not require proof (54 R129).
18. Q. Give examples of judicial admissions.

TRUE A. a) The genuineness and due execution of an actionable document copied in or attached to a
pleading is deemed admitted by the adverse party if he does not specifically deny it under oath and set forth
what he claims to be the facts. (S8 R8).
TRUE b) Material averment in the complaint, other than those as to the amount of unliquidated damages,
shall be deemed admitted when not specifically denied. (S11 R8).
TRUE c) In a request for admission under R26, each of the matters of which an admission is requested
shall be deemed admitted unless within the period designated in the request which shall not be less than 15 days
after service thereof, the party to whom the request is directed files and serves upon the requesting party a sworn
statement either denying specifically the matters of which an admission is requested or setting forth in detail the
reasons why he cannot truthfully either admit or deny those matters. (S2 R26). Take note however that any
admission made by a party pursuant to such request is for the purpose of the pending action only and shall not
constitute an admission by him for any other purpose nor may the same be used against him in any other
proceeding. (S3 R26).
TRUE d) Stipulation of facts. (Diego v. Sandiganbayan, 339 SCRA 592).
TRUE e) Admissions in the pleadings.

19. Q. P filed an action for collection of loan against D. P attached to the complaint a copy of the
promissory note evidencing the loan signed by D. D filed an unsworn answer specifically denying that he signed
the note. After the presentation of his testimonial evidence, P rested his case forgetting to formally offer in
evidence the promissory note. The court rendered judgment in P's favor taking into consideration the promissory
note. On appeal, D assigns as error the court's taking into consideration the promissory note although it was not
formally offered in evidence. Is D's assignment of error meritorious?164

4
 FALSE A. No. D's failure to specifically deny under oath the promissory note which was an actionable
document resulted in D's implied admission of its genuineness and due execution. The same is a judicial
admission and hence does not require proof pursuant to S4 R129.

20. Q. X sued Y, a shipping co., based on a contract of carriage contained in a bill of lading. The bill
of lading, an actionable document, was pleaded and attached to the complaint. Y, without alleging anything else,
merely assailed the validity of the agreement in the bill of lading for being contrary to public policy. After
presenting evidence, X did not formally offer for admission the bill of lading The court ruled for X. On motion
for reconsideration, Y alleged that X failed to prove his action as the bill of lading was not formally offered.
Decide. (96 Bar Q15-2).
FALSE A. Motion for reconsideration is denied. Y's failure to specifically deny under oath the bill of
lading which was an actionable document resulted in his implied admission of its genuineness and due
execution. The same is a judicial admission and hence does not require proof pursuant to S4 R129.

21. Q. Is the Defendant's failure to file an answer to the complaint an implied admission of the
material allegations thereof?

A. TRUE No. Under S3 R9, where the defendant has been declared in default, the court may in its
discretion require the claimant to submit evidence. Evidently this presupposes that the defendant had not made
an implied admission of the material averments of the complaint. (See Heirs of de Guzman v. Perona, 2 July
2010, Peralta, J.).

22. Q. Plaintiff sued Defendant for collection of the purchase price of a land in the amount of
P2,200,000. Defendant in her answer stated that she had paid P2 million and therefore owes the Plaintiff only
P200,000. During the trial, Defendant, without objection, presented a receipt showing payment of the P200,000.
Nor did the Plaintiff object to the admissibility of the receipt when it was formally offered. The trial court
rendered judgment dismissing the case stating that Defendant had fully paid her obligation. On appeal,
Defendant contends that the trial court erred in considering the evidence of payment since there was a judicial
admission by Defendant that she still owes P200,000. Is the Defendant's contention correct?
TRUE A. No. The benefit of a judicial admission may be lost by failure to object to the presentation of
evidence contradicting it. It is noteworthy that when Defendant presented the evidence of payment, Plaintiff did
not object thereto. When the receipt was formally offered as evidence, Plaintiff did not manifest their objection
to the admissibility of said document on the ground that payment was not an issue. Since there was an implied
consent on the part of Plaintiff to try the issue of payment, even if no motion was filed and no amendment of the
pleading has been ordered, the RTC cannot be faulted for admitting respondent's testimonial and documentary
evidence to prove payment. (Dela Cruz v. Concepcion, 11 October 2012, Peralta, J.).

23. Q. In an action for reconveyance of a parcel of land filed in the Regional Trial Court, the
defendant, through his lawyer, filed an answer therein admitting the averment in the complaint that the land was
acquired by the plaintiff through inheritance from his parents, the former owners thereof. Subsequently, the
defendant changed his lawyer and, with leave of court, amended the answer. In the amended answer, the
abovementioned admission no longer appears; instead, the alleged ownership of the land by the plaintiff was
denied coupled with the allegation that the defendant is the owner of the land for the reason that he bought the
same from the plaintiff's parents during their lifetime. After trial, the Regional Trial Court rendered a decision
upholding the defendant's ownership of the land. On appeal, the plaintiff contended that the defendant is bound
by the admission contained in his original answer.
Is the contention of plaintiff correct? Why? (93 Bar Q4)
TRUE A. No, the contention of plaintiff is not correct.
5
 Under S8 R10, an amended pleading supersedes the pleading that it amends. Hence the admissions in the
superseded pleading cease to be judicial admissions and may not be considered by the court unless offered in
evidence. Here there was no showing that the plaintiff offered the original answer in evidence.

24. Q. May a judicial admission be contradicted?