G.R. No.
130730 October 19, 2001
HERNANDO GENER vs.
GREGORIO DE LEON and ZENAIDA FAUSTINO
Facts:
The respondents (De Leon and Faustino), as plaintiffs therein, alleged that they are the original
claimants and actual possessors in good faith under a bona fide claim of ownership of a parcel of
agricultural land
The said parcel of land and the adjoining lots on the north and south thereof were originally part
of the course or bed of the Angat River which was formerly adjacent thereto and the boundary on
the east or north-east of Lot No. 1050, Cad-350, plan Ap-03-003056, covered by Original
Certificate of Title No. 0-1208 (M) of respondent Gregorio de Leon.4
the Angat River allegedly changed its course by moving more than one hundred (100) meters far
to the east or north-east, leaving its former course or bed along the eastern or north-eastern
boundary
Then, the respondents (De Leon and Faustino) extended their occupation and cultivation to this
elevated and dried up land, planting and cultivating thereon coconuts, bananas and vegetables
until May 8, 1989 when petitioner (Gener)allegedly through force, threat and intimidation,
unlawfully entered the property and deprived respondents (De Leon and Faustino) of the
possession thereof, removing the barbed wire fence placed by respondents (De Leon and
Faustino) on the northern boundary of the land in dispute and transferred it to the eastern
boundary. Since demands to vacate fell on deaf ears and subsequent efforts toward amicably
settling the dispute through the Barangay Justice System proved futile, respondents (De Leon
and Faustino) instituted the complaint for forcible entry against the petitioner.5
Petitioner, as defendant in the ejectment case, denied the material allegations of the complaint.
Instead, he alleged that he is the real owner and lawful and actual possessor of the land in dispute
evidenced by a notarized deed of sale executed on October 10, 1988 by Benjamin Joaquin, heir
of the previous owner, Proceso Joaquin. Upon acquisition of the land in dispute, he immediately
caused the declaration of the land for taxation purposes in the Office of the Municipal Assessor
of Norzagaray, Bulacan and paid realty taxes thereon. Further, he claimed that the land is a
private land which was previously owned by Proceso Joaquin and that the said fact is admitted
and recognized by Gorgonio de Leon, the late father and predecessor-in-interest of respondent
Gregorio de Leon, in an affidavit he executed on November 13, 1961 in which he mentioned
Proceso Joaquin as a neighboring landowner in the east of his land.
Petitioner (Gener)further averred that it was respondents (De Leon and Faustino) who forcibly
entered his lot in question as evidenced by two (2) criminal cases
Hernando Gener declared that he did not forcibly enter plaintiffs’ lot on October 10, 1988 as
alleged in the complaint but it is the plaintiffs who forcibly entered his lot which he bought from
Benjamin Joaquin, son of Proceso Joaquin, as evidenced by a Deed of Sale executed before
Judge Filomeno Pascual (Exh. "I") after which he cleared (hinawan) and planted mangoes,
bananas, camias and other plants; that the land he bought had not been possessed by Gregorio de
Leon and Zenaida Faustino as they are residing at Santos St., Norzagaray, Bulacan, which is five
hundred (500) meters away from the lot he bought.
PREMISES CONSIDERED, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and against
the defendant.
On appeal to the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
the said court rendered a decision reversing the decision of the Municipal Trial Court of
Norzagaray, and thereby dismissed herein respondents (De Leon and Faustino)’ complaint for
forcible entry.9 In its decision, the Regional Trial Court sustained petitioner’s claim of ownership
of the property in dispute by virtue of having bought such property from the heir of the former
owner thereof.
Regional Trial Court also declared that petitioner (Gener)has been in possession of the disputed
property since October 10, 1988.
Issue: WN testimonial evidence should be relied upon
Ruling:
As against the mere testimonial evidence relied upon by respondents (De Leon and Faustino) that
they were forcibly ejected from the land by petitioner (Gener)on May 8, 1989, the documentary
evidence of petitioner’s prior possession, more particularly the evidence of the two (2) incidents
of October 24, 1988 and March 12, 1989, must prevail. Oral testimony, depending as it does
exclusively on human memory, is not as reliable as written or documentary evidence, 22 especially
when said documentary evidence is not opposed. As Judge Limkin of Georgia once said, "I
would rather trust the smallest slip of paper for truth than the strongest and most retentive
memory ever bestowed on mortal man."23
The Municipal Trial Court of Norzagaray should have taken judicial notice of the said criminal
cases involving the subject parcel of land and pending in its docket. While, 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 notwithstanding the fact
that both cases may have been tried or are actually pending before the same judge, 24 this rule is
subject to the exception that "in the absence of objection and as a matter of convenience to all
parties, a court may properly treat all or any part of the original record of the case filed in its
archives as read into the records of a case pending before it, when with the knowledge of the
opposing party, reference is made to it, by name and number or in some other manner by which
it is sufficiently designated." 25 Respondents (De Leon and Faustino) did not impugn nor object to
the evidence of petitioner (Gener)on the existence of the said criminal cases of malicious
mischief that sprung from the alleged forcible entry of petitioner’s alleged property. Thus, the
said Municipal Trial Court should have taken judicial notice of these facts in resolving the issue
of prior possession.
