RULE 129

WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED

Section 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory. – A court shall take judicial notice,
without the introduction of evidence, of the existence and territorial extent of
states, their political history, forms of government and symbols of nationality, the
law of nations, the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals, the
political constitution and history of the Philippines, official acts of the legislative,
executive and judicial departments of the National Government of the Philippines,
the laws of nature, the measure of time, and the geographical divisions. (1a)

Q: When is judicial notice mandatory?

Ans.:

When it pertains to the following:

• the existence and territorial extent of states, their political history, forms of
government and symbols of nationality,
• the law of nations,
• the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals,
• the political constitution and history of the Philippines,
• official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial departments of the
National Government of the Philippines,
• the laws of nature,
• the measure of time, and
• the geographical divisions.

Case reference:

Under the rules, it is mandatory and the Court has no alternative but to take
judicial notice of the official acts of the President of the Philippines, who heads
the executive branch of our government. It is further provided in the above-
 quoted rule that the court shall take judicial notice of the foregoing facts without
introduction of evidence. --- Rolex Suplico vs. NEDA, G.R. No. 178830, July 14, 2008

The doctrine of judicial notice rests on the wisdom and discretion of the courts.
The power to take judicial notice is to be exercised by courts with caution; care
must be taken that the requisite notoriety exists; and every reasonable doubt on the
subject should be promptly resolved in the negative.
Generally speaking, matters of judicial notice have three material requisites:
(1) the matter must be one of common and general knowledge;
TN[ (2) it must be well and authoritatively settled and not doubtful or uncertain; and
(3) it must be known to be within the limits of the jurisdiction of the court.
The principal guide in determining what facts may be assumed to be judicially
known is that of notoriety. Hence, it can be said that judicial notice is limited to
facts evidenced by public records and facts of general notoriety.
To say that a court will take judicial notice of a fact is merely another way of
saying that the usual form of evidence will be dispensed with if knowledge of the
fact can be otherwise acquired.
This is because the court assumes that the matter is so notorious that it will not
be disputed.
But judicial notice is not judicial knowledge. The mere personal knowledge of the
judge is not the judicial knowledge of the court, and he is not authorized to make
his individual knowledge of a fact, not generally or professionally known, the
basis of his action. Judicial cognizance is taken only of those matters which are
"commonly" known.
Things of "common knowledge", of which courts take judicial notice, may be
matters coming to the knowledge of men generally in the course of the ordinary
experiences of life, or they may be matters which are generally accepted by
mankind as true and are capable of ready and unquestioned demonstration.
Thus, facts which are universally known, and which may be found in
encyclopedias, dictionaries or other publications, are judicially noticed, provided
they are of such universal notoriety and so generally understood that they may
be regarded as forming part of the common knowledge of every person. --- State
Prosecutors vs. Manuel T. Muro, A.M. No. RTJ-92-876, September 19, 1994; Expertravel &
Tours, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 152392, May 26, 2005; Sps. Omar and
Moshiera Latip vs. Rosalie Palaña Chua, G.R. No. 177809, October 16, 2009

A judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to a reasonable dispute in that it is
either:
(1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court; or
[ (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resorting to sources whose
accuracy cannot reasonably be questionable. --- Expertravel & Tours, Inc. vs. Court of
Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 152392, May 26, 2005; Sps. Omar and Moshiera Latip vs. Rosalie
Palaña Chua, G.R. No. 177809, October 16, 2009
As the common knowledge of man ranges far and wide, a wide variety of
particular facts have been judicially noticed as being matters of common
knowledge. But a court cannot take judicial notice of any fact which, in part, is
dependent on the existence or non-existence of a fact of which the court has no
constructive knowledge. --- Expertravel & Tours, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R.
No. 152392, May 26, 2005; Sps. Omar and Moshiera Latip vs. Rosalie Palaña Chua, G.R. No.
177809, October 16, 2009

The article in the website cited by the RTC patently lacks a requisite for it to be of
judicial notice to the court because such article is not well and authoritatively
settled and is doubtful or uncertain. It must be remembered that some articles
appearing in the internet or on websites are easily edited and their sources are
unverifiable, thus, sole reliance on those articles is greatly discouraged. --- Juan v.
Juan, G.R. No. 221732, August 23, 2017

Section 2. Judicial notice, when discretionary. – 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.
(2)

Q: When is judicial notice discretionary?

Ans.:

When it pertains to matters:

• of public knowledge, or
• are capable of unquestionable demonstration,
• or ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions.

Case reference:

It is undisputed that the Land Management Bureau is the principal government

agency tasked with the survey of lands, and thus, more weight should be given to
the documents relating to its official tasks which are presumed to be done in the
ordinary course of business. Between a geodetic engineer and a tax assessor, the
conclusion is inevitable that it is the former's certification as to the location of
properties in dispute that is controlling, absent any finding of abuse of
discretion. As correctly observed by respondent and the RTC, the duty of
provincial and municipal assessors is primarily the assessment of taxes and not the
survey of lands. --- Barangay Sangalang vs. Barangay Maguihan, G.R. No. 159792,
December 23, 2009
 Neither could it be said that petitioner's SEC Registration and operating permits
from the CAB are documents which are of public knowledge, capable of
unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known to the judges because of
their judicial functions, in order to allow the CTA to take discretionary judicial
notice of the said documents. --- Silkair (Singapore) Pte., Ltd. vs. Commissioner of
Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 184398, February 25, 2010

Section 3. Judicial notice, when hearing necessary. – During the pre-trial and the
trial, the court, motu proprio or upon motion, shall hear the parties on the propriety
of taking judicial notice of any matter. 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. (3a)

Q: When is judicial notice necessitating a judicial hearing, and when should it

be heard?

Ans.:

When it pertains to any matters pertaining to the case. It can be heard:

• During the pre-trial and the trial, the court, motu proprio or upon motion,
shall hear the parties on the propriety of taking judicial notice of any matter.

• 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.

Case reference:

The process by which the trier of facts judges a person's age from his or her
appearance cannot be categorized as judicial notice. Judicial notice is based upon
convenience and expediency for it would certainly be superfluous, inconvenient,
and expensive both to parties and the court to require proof, in the ordinary way, of
facts which are already known to courts. --- People of the Phil. vs. Ronnie Rullepa, G.R.
No. 131516, March 5, 2003

* Judicial notice of the issue of age [of rape victim] without the requisite hearing
under Section 3 of Rule 129 of the Rules on evidence would not be sufficient to
establish the age of the victim to warrant the imposition of the death penalty. ---
People of the Phil. vs. Gorgonio Villarama, G.R. No. 139211, February 12, 2003
Judicial notice of the issue of age without the requisite hearing under Section 3 of
Rule 129 of the Rules on Evidence would not be sufficient compliance with the
law. --- People of the Phil. vs. Manuel Pruna, et al., G.R. No. 138471, October 10, 2002

[S]ection 3 of the same Rule 16 provides that a hearing is necessary before

judicial notice of any matter may be taken by the court. This requirement of a
hearing is needed so that the parties can be heard thereon if such matter is
decisive of a material issue in the case. --- Silkair (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.
JIN
vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 184398,
February 25, 2010

The classification of the land is obviously essential to the valuation of the subject
property, which is the very issue in the present case. The parties should thus have
been given the opportunity to present evidence on the nature of the property
before the lower court took judicial notice of the commercial nature of a portion
of the subject landholdings. . . .
The power to take judicial notice is to be exercised by courts with caution
especially where the case involves a vast tract of land. Care must be taken that the
requisite notoriety exists; and every reasonable doubt on the subject should be
promptly resolved in the negative. To say that a court will take judicial notice of a
fact is merely another way of saying that the usual form of evidence will be
dispensed with if knowledge of the fact can be otherwise acquired. This is because
the court assumes that the matter is so notorious that it will not be disputed. But
judicial notice is not judicial knowledge. The mere personal knowledge of the
judge is not the judicial knowledge of the court, and he is not authorized to make
his individual knowledge of a fact, not generally or professionally known, the
basis of his action. --- LBP vs. Honeycomb Farms Corp., G.R. No. 169903, February 29,
2012 citing Land Bank of the Phils. vs. Wycoco, 464 Phil. 83, 97-98 (2004)

Section 4. Judicial admissions. – An admission, oral or written, made by [the]

party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof. The
admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was made through palpable
mistake or that the imputed admission was not, in fact, made. (4a)

Q: When is there a judicial admission?

Ans.:

There is judicial admission, oral or written, and does not require proof when made
by the party
 • in the course of the proceedings and
• in the same case.

Case reference:

Judicial admissions do not require proof and may not be contradicted in the
absence of a prior showing that the admissions had been made through palpable
mistake. --- Gregorio Silot, Jr. vs. Estrella De La Rosa, G.R. No. 159240, February 4, 2008

Section 4 Rule 129 of the Rules of Court provides that an admission, verbal or
written, made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not
require proof. The admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was
made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made. --- Roberto C.
Sicam, et al. vs. Lulu vs. Jorge, et al., G.R. No. 159617, August 8, 2007

A judicial admission also removes an admitted fact from the field of controversy.
Consequently, an admission made in the pleadings cannot be controverted by the
party making such admission and are conclusive as to such party, and all proofs to
the contrary or inconsistent therewith should be ignored, whether objection is
interposed by the party or not. The allegations, statements or admissions
contained in a pleading are conclusive as against the pleader. A party cannot
subsequently take a position contrary of or inconsistent with what was
pleaded. --- Joshua S. Alfelor, et al. vs. Josefina M. Halasan, et al., G.R. No. 165987, March
31, 2006

It is settled that judicial admissions may be made:

(a) in the pleadings filed by the parties;
(b) in the course of the trial either by verbal or written manifestations or
stipulations; or
(c) in other stages of judicial proceedings, as in the pre-trial of the case.
Thus, facts pleaded in the petition and answer, as in the case at bar, are deemed
admissions of petitioner and respondents, respectively, who are not permitted to
contradict them or subsequently take a position contrary to or inconsistent with
such admissions. --- Republic of the Phil. vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 152154, July
15, 2003

The presence of the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship with the
offender in the instant case has likewise been adequately established. Both
qualifying circumstances were specifically alleged in the Information, stipulated on
and admitted during the pre-trial conference, and testified to by both parties in
their respective testimonies. Also, such stipulation and admission, as correctly
pointed out by the Court of Appeals, are binding upon this Court because they
are judicial admissions within the contemplation of Section 4, Rule 129 of the
 Revised Rules of Court. --- People of the Phil. vs. Antonio P. Lauga, G.R. No. 186228,
March 15, 2010

Under Section 4, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court, a judicial admission requires no
proof. The admission may be contradicted only by a showing that it was made
through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made. The Court cannot
JIN
lightly set aside a judicial admission especially when the opposing party relied
upon the same and accordingly dispensed with further proof of the fact already
admitted. An admission made by a party in the course of the proceedings does not
require proof. --- Toshiba Information Equipment (Phils.), Inc. vs. Commissioner of
Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 157594, March 9, 2010

* Q: Is there an exception to the rule that allegations, statements, or admission

contained in a pleading are conclusive against the pleader?
Ans.:
The general rule that "the allegations, statements, or admissions contained in a
pleading are conclusive as against the pleader" is not an absolute and inflexible
rule and is subject to exceptions.
xxx xxx xxx
In other words, an admission in a pleading on which a party goes to trial may be
contradicted by showing that it was made by improvidence or mistake or that no
such admission was made, i.e., "not in the sense in which the admission was made
to appear or the admission was taken out of context." --- J. Antonio Aguenza vs.
Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co., et al., G.R. No. 74336, April 7, 1997

* Q: Are admissions made during preliminary conference considered judicial

admission similar to admission during pre-trial hearing, and why?
Ans.:
In the case of Spouses Noynay v. Citihomes Builder and Development, Inc., G.R.
No. 204160, September 22, 2014 the highest court enunciated that --- It must be
remembered that these judicial admissions [factual admissions made by the parties during the
preliminary conference] are legally binding on the party making the admissions. Similar to
pre-trial admissions in a pre-trial order in ordinary civil cases, the contents of the record of a
preliminary conference control the subsequent course of the action, thereby, defining and
limiting the issues to be tried. A contrary ruling would render useless the proceedings during
the preliminary conference and would, in fact, be antithetical to the very purpose of a
preliminary conference, which is, among others, to allow the parties to admit and stipulate on a
given set of facts and to simplify the issues involved.

Also, in the case of Spouses Noynay v. Citihomes Builder and Development, Inc.,
G.R. No. 204160, September 22, 2014, citing Oscar Constantino v. Heirs of
Oscar Constantino, G.R. No. 181508, October 2, 2013, the highest court ruled that
--- Once the stipulations are reduced into writing and signed by the parties and their counsels,
they become binding on the parties who made them. They become judicial admissions of the fact
 or facts stipulated. Even if placed at a disadvantageous position, a party may not be allowed to
rescind them unilaterally, it must assume the consequences of the disadvantage.

# Q: Can a party who judicial admits a fact later on challenged the fact as
judicial admission, and why?
Ans.:
in the case of Spouses Noynay v. Citihomes Builder and Development, Inc., G.R.
No. 204160, September 22, 2014, citing Oscar Constantino v. Heirs of Oscar
Constantino, G.R. No. 181508, October 2, 2013, the Supreme Court also
enunciated that “A
party who judicially admits a fact cannot later
challenge the fact as judicial admissions are a waiver of proof;
production of evidence is dispensed with. A judicial admission
also removes an admitted fact from the field of controversy.
Consequently, an admission made in the pleadings cannot be
controverted by the party making such admission and are
conclusive as to such party, and all proofs to the contrary or
inconsistent therewith should be ignored, whether objection is
interposed by the party or not. The allegations, statements or
admissions contained in a pleading are conclusive as against
the pleader. A party cannot subsequently take a position
contrary of or inconsistent with what was pleaded.