1.PAREL v. PRUDENCIO FACTS: S i m e o n P r u d e n c i o f i l e d a complaint for recovery of possessi o n a n d d a m a g e s against DaniloParel.

Prudencio is claiming that he is the owner of a two-storey residential house. He also claims that the house was constructed in1972-1975 from his own funds and declared in his namei n a t a x d e c l a r a t i o n a n d t h a t h e h a s b e e n p a y i n g t h e taxes on it ever since. He only allowed Florentino, Danilos Father to use the second floor. When Prudencio asked Florentino to vacate the house,Florentino left butDanilo and his family entered the house without permission from Prodencio claiming that the house is co-owned by Florentino and Prudencio. Prudencio presented the affidavit executed by Florentino stating that he is not the owner of the house. ISSUES: 1. WON Florentinos affidavit should be given weight as conclusive proof of Prudencios sole ownership. 2.WON Parel was able to prove by preponderance o f evidence that his father was a co-owner of the house. NO. HELD:1. Yes. Petitioner argues that the CA erred in findingtheaffidavit of petitioners father declaring respond ent aso w n e r o f t h e s u b j e c t h o u s e a s c o n c l u s i v e p r o o f t h a t respond ent is the true and only owner of the house sincethe affidavit should be read in its entirety to determinethe purpose for which it was executed. Prudencio had shown sufficient evidence to supporthis complaint for recovery of possession of the groundfloor of the subject house as the exclusive owner thereof.He presented the affidavit dated September 24, 1973executed by Florentino and sworn to before the AssistantCity Assessor of Baguio City, G.F. Lagasca, Stating that he is not the owner of the subject house and it is owned by Prudencio.Such affidavit is a declaration against interest of Florentino and his heirs. Moreover, the building plan of the house was in the name of P r u d e n c i o a n d h i s w i f e a n d t h e h o u s e w a s b u i l t i n a ccordance to said plan. Also, Pr u d e n c i o w a s t h e o n e p a y i n g t h e r e a l e s t a t e property taxes

on the house under his name since 1974,and the Parels did not pay this any time in their name. W h i l e t a x r e c e i p t s a n d d e c l a r a t i o n s a r e n o t inc ontrovertible evidence of ownership, they constitute atleast proof that the holder has a claim of title over theproperty. But in this case, the taxes, taken with the othercircumstances, SC concludes that Prudencio is the soleowner of the house. 2. No. Since Prudencio has established his claim of soleownership, the burden of disproving so was shifted toParel. So he has to prove that Florentio was a co-ownerof the housel. In Jison v. Court of Appeals, the SC said that: he who alleges the affirmative of the issue has the burden of proof, and upon the plaintiff in a civil case, the burden of proof never parts. However, in the course of trial in a civilcase, once plaintiff makes out a prima faciecase inhisf a v o r , t h e d u t y o r t h e b u r d e n o f e v i d e n c e s h i f t s t o defendant to controvert plaintiff'sp r i m a f a c i e case,otherwise, a verdict must be returned in favor of plaintiff.Moreover, in civil cases, the party having the burden of p r o o f m u s t p r o d u c e a p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f e v i d e n c e thereo n, with plaintiff having to rely on the strength of h i s o w n e v i d e n c e a n d n o t u p o n t h e w e a k n e s s o f t h e defendants. The concept of preponderance of evidence refers to evidence which is of greater weight, or moreconvincing, that which is offered in opposition to it; atbottom, it means probability of truth. 4.People vs Garcia y Ruiz (Ruiz) Facts: The prosecution presented a single witness, PO1 Samuel Garcia (PO1 Garcia), who, as poseur-buyer, testified that Ruiz arrest was made pursuant to a legitimate buy-bust operation where Ruiz sold him marijuana. The parties dispensed with the testimony of the forensic chemist, Jesse AbadillaDela Rosa, after they entered into stipulationsconcerning the manner and nature of his testimony. The defense relied solely on the testimony of Ruiz who claimed he was the victim of a police frame-up and extortion.Ruiz claimed that the case was a trumped-up charge made by the police to extort money from him.In making this

claim, he admitted that he did not know PO1 Garcia and that he saw him for the first when he was arrested. He insisted that he knew a certain Balais who arrested suspected pushers/users in their place Issue: WON the prosecution able to prove the guilt of Ruiz? Held: No. Every criminal case starts with the constitutionally-protected presumption of innocence in favor of the accused that can only be defeated by proof beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution starts the trial process by presenting evidence showing the presence of all the elements of the offense charged. If the prosecution proves all the required elements, the burden of evidence shifts to the accused to disprove the prosecutions case. Based on these presentations, the court must then determine if the guilt of the accused has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. It may happen though that the prosecution, even before the presentation by the defense, already has failed to prove all the elements of the crime charged, in which case, the presumption of innocence prevails; the burden of evidence does not shift to the accused, who no longer needs to present evidence in his defense. Thus, other than the markings made by PO1 Garcia and the police investigator (whose identity was not disclosed), no physical inventory was ever made, and no photograph of the seized items was taken under the circumstances required by R.A. No. 9165 and its implementing rules. We observe that while there was testimony with respect to the marking of the seized items at the police station, no mention whatsoever was made on whether the marking had been done in the presence of Ruiz or his representatives. There was likewise no mention that any representative from the media and the Department of Justice, or any elected official had been present during this inventory, or that any of these people had been required to sign the copies of the inventory. The prosecution failed to comply with the chain of Custody requirement. We need not to discuss the lower courts misplaced reliance on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties, except to state that the presumption only arises in the absence of contrary details in the case that raise doubt on the regularity in the performance of official duties. Where, as in the present case, the police officers failed to comply with the standard procedures prescribed by law, there is no occasion to apply the presumption

7.PeoplevsPadiernos FACTS: The accused in this case, Nona Padiernos, and the deceased, Rodolfo Padiernos, were husbandand wife. The deceased is a tall, and robust man and an agent of the Bureau of Customs, and as suchwas issued a gun, which he keeps under the mattress of their bed. On the fateful night, the accusedwaited for the deceased until 4 a.m. in the morning--the deceased was drunk. The next day, after havingdriven the children to school, the accused suddenly stabbed the deceased with a knife, shortly thereafterthe accused and the deceased came out of the room and the accused called for the driver and theythereafter were on the way to the hospital. It appears that Rodolfo never made it alive to the hospital andwas declared dead on arrival. The accused, instead of surrendering to the police, went into hiding. Dr.Brion of the N.B.I. then performed an autopsy on the cadaver of the deceased, to which discovery wasmade regarding 3 stab wounds which was the cause of death. The accused admitted that she killed thedeceased. However, she also claims that she did it in self-defense. According to the accused, the deceasedaccused her of stealing P1,000 and started to beat her, to which she reacted by closing her eyes andswinging the knife around and suddenly she noticed that Rodolfo had already been bloodied. The trialcourt refused to give credence to this claim of self--defense. ISSUE: Whether or not the plea of self--defense is tenable? Held: No. The evidence that was obtained by the autopsy reveals the presence of stab wounds. If the claimof the accused is to be believed, there should only have been slash wounds and not stab wounds. Furthermore, the appellant instead of surrendering to the authorities after the incident, fled and wentinto hiding surrendering almost 4 years later. It is now well--settled that one who admits the infliction ofinjuries which caused the death of another has the burden of proving self--defense with sufficient andconvincing evidence. If such evidence is of doubtful veracity, and is not clear and convincing, the defensemust necessarily fail, for having admitted that he was the author of the death of the deceased, it wasincumbent upon appellant to prove the justifying circumstance claimed by him without relying on theweakness of that of the prosecution but on the strength of his own evidence.

10. Burgos v. Macapagal-Arroyo FACTS: Jonas Joseph T. Burgos a farmer advocate and a member of KilusangMagbubukidsaBulacan was forcibly taken and abducted by a group of four (4) men and a woman. Then the petitioner, Edita Burgos, held a press conference and announced that her son Jonas was missing. That same day, the petitioner sought confirmation from the guard if the person abducted was her son Jonas. In a subsequent police investigation and Land Transportation Office (LTO) verification, it was discovered that plate number TAB 194 was registered to a 1991 Isuzu XLT vehicle owned by a certain Mauro B. Mudlong. The said vehicle was seized and impounded on June 24, 2006 for transporting timber without permit. However, in May 2007, right after Jonas abduction was made public, it was discovered that plate number TAB 194 of this 1991 Isuzu XLT vehicle was missing, and the engine and other spare parts were cannibalized. The police was likewise able to generate cartographic sketches of two of the abductors of Jonas based on its interview of eyewitnesses. On August 29, 2007, the Philippine National Police-Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (PNP-CIDG) presented EmeritoLipio a.k.a. KaTibo/KaCris, Marlon D. Manuel a.k.a. Ka Carlo, and Melissa Concepcion Reyes a.k.a. Ka Lisa/Ramil to support the theory that elements of the New Peoples Army (NPA) perpetrated the abduction of Jonas. Upon subsequent police investigation and LTO verification, it was discovered that plate number TAB 194 was registered to a 1991 Isuzu XLT vehicle owned by a certain Mauro B. Mudlong. It was also later confirmed by employees of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) that Mudlong was arrested and his 1991 Isuzu XLT vehicle was seized on June 24, 2006 by Cpl. Castro Bugalan and Pfc. Jose Villea of the 56th Infantry Battalion (IB) of the Philippine Army for transporting timber without permit. As agreed upon by the DENR employees and officers of the 56th IB, the vehicle with the license plate no. TAB 194 was impounded in the 56th IB headquarters whose commanding officer at that time was Lt. Col. Noel Clement. Prior to Jonas abduction, Mudlongs 1991 Isuzu XLT vehicle remained impounded at the 56th IBs Headquarters. In May 2007, right after Jonas abduction was made public, it was discovered that plate number TAB 194 of this 1991 Isuzu XLT vehicle was missing, and the engine and other spare parts were "cannibalized." In its July 17, 2008 decision, the Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed the petition for the Issuance of the Writ of Habeas Corpus, denied the petitioners motion to declare the respondents in contempt; and partially granted the privilege of the Writ of Amparo in favor of the petitioner. Essentially, the CA found that the evidence the petitioner presented failed to establish her claimed direct

connection between the abductors of Jonas and the military. It also found that the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and the PNP did not fully exert their effort in the conduct of investigation. The CA ruled that the AFP has the burden of connecting certain loose ends regarding the identity of Ka Ramon and the allegation that Ka Ramon is indeed Jonas in the Order of Battle. As for the PNP-CIDG, the CA branded its investigation as rather shallow and conducted haphazardly. The CA also found that the investigations by the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and the PNP "leave much to be desired as they did not fully exert their effort to unearth the truth and to bring the real culprits before the bar of justice."The CA held that since the petitioner has established that the vehicle used in the abduction was linked to a vehicle (with license plate number TAB 194) impounded at the headquarters of the 56th IB, it became the burden of the AFP to exercise extraordinary diligence to determine the why and the wherefore of the loss of the license plate in their custody and its appearance in a vehicle (a maroon Toyota Revo) used in Jonas abduction. ISSUE: Whether or not the failure of the PNP and AFP to conduct an exhaustive and meaningful investigation and to exercise extraordinary diligence in the performance of their duties is a fatal to the grant of the privilege of the Writ of Amparo. HELD: Yes.Considering the findings of the CA and our review of the records of the present case, we conclude that the PNP and the AFP have so far failed to conduct an exhaustive and meaningful investigation into the disappearance of Jonas Burgos, and to exercise the extraordinary diligence (in the performance of their duties) that the Rule on the Writ of Amparo requires. Because of these investigative shortcomings, we cannot rule on the case until a more meaningful investigation, using extraordinary diligence, is undertaken. The dismissal of the petitions for Contempt and for the Issuance of a Writ of Amparo with respect to President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo for it is covered by immunity. 13. Ampatuanvs People Facts: The buy-bust operation was conducted by Police officers PO1 Micabalo and PO2 Caslib, prepared marked money in the amount of P500.006 and went to the house of Ibrahim posing as buyers. The rest of the team positioned themselves at the grassy area nearby awaiting for the pre-arranged signal from PO1 Micabalo and PO2 Caslib. The policemen saw the accused-appellant RuelAmpatuan (Mr. Ampatuan) and his wife Linda, at the gate of the fence.7They talked to the

couple and pretended to buy for a party, marijuana worth P500.00. The couple told them to wait outside the fence and then went inside the house. Several minutes later, the couple came out with another man identified as MaguidLumna (Lumna). Mr. Ampatuan asked for the payment. The poseurbuyers handed the marked money to Mr. Ampatuan, who in turn handed it to his wife, Linda. Mr. Ampatuan then showed the police officers the marijuana contained in one pack. This was placed inside a black bag and given to the poseur-buyers. Accourding to the accused they went to the house of one Arnulfo Morales (Morales) in Tagum City to inquire about reports that the town of Asuncion was impassable because of flooding. Mr. Ampatuan explained in his testimony that the alleged flooding was the reason given by his debtor MukerGanda (Muker) to explain the belated payment of a loan. Morales advised them that they should go directly to the house of Muker at Panabo City, Davao del Norte to collect the amount due in his favor.12 Upon boarding a bus going to Panabo City, the three met Arlene, the wife of Ibrahim. Arlene invited them for lunch at her house, which was near Mukers residence. When they reached Mukers house, the latter was not able to pay for his loan, hence they just acceded to the invitation of Arlene. While inside the house, they saw Ibrahim outside with two companions. At that point, five police officers entered the premises where Ibrahim was and one of them fired his gun. Ibrahim and his companions ran, were chased by the police but were not apprehended. Failing to capture Ibrahim, the police officers then barged back to the house where the couple, Lumna, and Arlene were. They accused Mr. Ampatuan to be the owner of the black bag containing marijuana samples carried by the police officers. Mr. Ampatuan vehemently denied the ownership of the same and his participation in the sale and/or possession of illegal drugs. He explained that he and his companions were merely visitors of Arlene. Nevertheless, the police officers insisted that he owned the samples and the black bag and they were eventually brought to the police station. Issue: HOW MUCH WEIGHT BE GIVEN TO TESTIMONIES OF POLICE OFFICERS? Held: MUCH CREDENCE BE GIVEN TO THEM UNLESS THERE IS EVIDCENCE TO THE CONTRARY. THEY ARE PRESUMED TO HAVE PERFORMED THEIR DUTIES IN A REGULAR MANNER. In cases involving violations of Dangerous Drugs Act, credence should be given to the narration of the incident by the prosecution witnesses especially when they are police officers who are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary. Moreover, in the absence of proof of motive to falsely impute such a serious crime against the

appellant, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, as well as the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses, shall prevail over appellants self-serving and uncorroborated denial. 16. Occidental vs CA Facts: As a result of the collision of a Ford Fiera and a Carina Express, a passenger bus, the driver of FordFiera, PacificoCarbajosa, Sr. died. TrencioAlmedilla, the owner of the Fiera which was registered under SevillaLine, and Alberto Pingkian were likewise in the Fiera and suffered various injuries as a result of the incident. Neither the driver nor the passengers of the Carina Express No. stopped to assist the victims, but rather the bus proceeded. The owner of the Carina passenger bus, Occidental Land Transportation Company filed a case for damages against Sevilla Line and/or William Sevilla, the registered owner of the Ford Fiera (Case1). TrencioAlmedilla and Alberto and Alberto Pingkian also filed a civil suit for damages against Occidental Land Transportation Company, Inc. and the driver of the Carina bus, Edgardo Enerio (Case 2). In Case 1 it was found out that the driver of the Carina passenger bus and not the driver of the Ford Fiera, was negligent. More than ten years after the inception of the case, the judge in Case 2 rendered thedecision against Occidental Land Transportation Company, Inc. and Edgardo Enerio.(driver of Bus). The facts of the case were "adopted by reference" from the decision of the Court in case 1. Issue: WON THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DECIDING THE CASE BASED ON A DECISION RENDERED IN ANOTHER CASE. Held: No error was committed by the respondent court when it upheld the findings of the trial court in Civil Case No.2. The reasons advanced by the respondent court in taking judicial notice of Civil Case No. 1 are valid and not contrary to law. As a general rule, "courts are not authorized to take judicial notice, in the adjudication of cases pending before them, 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 heard or are actually pending before the same judge." The general rule admits of exceptions as enumerated in Tabuena v.

Court of Appeals,(Case 19 in our assignment) the Court, citing U.S. v. Claveria, which We quote: . . . 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 a case filed in its archives as read into the record of a case pending before it, when, with the knowledge of the opposing party, reference is made to it for that purpose, by name and number or in some other manner by which it is sufficiently designated; or when the original record of the former case or any part of it, is actually withdrawn from the archives by the court's direction, at the request or with the consent of the parties, and admitted as a part of the record of the case then pending. It is clear, though, that this exception is applicable only when, 'in the absence of objection,' 'with the knowledge of the opposing party,' or 'at the request or with the consent of the parties,' the case is clearly referred to or 'the original or part of the records of the case are actually withdrawn from the archives' and 'admitted as part of the record of the case then pending.' (Emphasis supplied). The Court in Tabuena ruled that the conditions necessary for the exception to be applicable were not established, such as that ". . ., (t)he petitioner was completely unaware that his testimony in Civil Case No. 1327 was being considered by the trial court in the case then pending before it. As the petitioner puts it, the matter was never taken up at the trial and was 'unfairly sprung' upon him, leaving him no opportunity to counteract." 19. Tabuenavs CA Facts: The Trial Court found, the lot was sold by Juan Peralta, Jr. sometime in 1926 to Alfredo Tabernilla conveyed the subject land to Tabernilla. At the same time, she requested that she be allowed to stay thereon as she had been living there all her life. Tabernilla agreed provided she paid the realty taxes on the property, which she promised to do, and did. She remained on the said land until her death, following which Tabuena, her son and half-brother of Juan Peralta, Jr., took possession thereof. The complaint was filed when demand was made upon Tabuena to surrender the property and he refused, claiming it as his own. The trial court rejected his defense that he was the absolute owner of the lot, which he inherited from his parents, who acquired it even before World War II and had been living thereon since then and until they died. Also disbelieved was his contention that the subject of the sale between Peralta and Tabernilla was a different piece of land planted to coconut trees and bounded on three sides by the Makato River. The Tabuena faults the decision of the trial court, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, for lack of basis. It is argued that the lower courts should not have

taken into account evidence not submitted by the private respondent in accordance with the Rules of Court.The trial court also erred when, to resolve the ownership of the subject lot, it considered the proceedings in another case involving the same parties but a different parcel of land. CA held that the trial court committed no reversible error in taking judicial notice of Tabuena's testimony in a case it had previously heard which was closely connected with the case before it. It conceded that as a general rule "courts are not authorized to take judicial notice, in the adjudication of cases pending before them, 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 heard or are actually pending b before the same judge. Nevertheless, it applied 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 a case filed in its archives as read into the record of a case pending before it, when, with the knowledge of the opposing party, reference is made to it for that purpose, by name and number or in some other manner by which it is sufficiently designated; or when the original record of the former case or any part of it, is actually withdrawn from the archives by the court's direction, at the request or with the consent of the parties, and admitted as a part of the record of the case then pending. Issue: WON the trial Court erred in taking judicial notice in resolving the ownership of the land. Held: Yes. It is the policy of SCto accord proper deference to the factual findings of the courts below and even to regard them as conclusive where there is no showing that they have been reached arbitrarily. The exception is where such findings do not conform to the evidence on record and appear indeed to have no valid basis to sustain their correctness. As in this case. The conclusions of the trial court were based mainly on Exhibits "A", "B" and "C", which had not been formally offered as evidence and therefore should have been totally disregarded, conformably to the Rules of Court. The trial court also erred when it relied on the evidence submitted in another civil case and took judicial notice thereof without the consent or knowledge of the petitioner, in violation of existing doctrine. Thus vitiated, the factual findings here challenged are as an edifice built upon shifting sands and should not have been sustained by the respondent court. 22. Torres V CA

Facts: The respondents were the Son and grandchildren of Margarita and Claro in Margaritas first marriage. When Claro died Margarita Torres cohabited with Leon ArvisuArbole and they had a daughter Macaria.later on they got married. The respondents filed an ejectment case against Macaria and in their petition they stated that: the plaintiffs and the defendant Macaria A. Bautista are the legal heirs and nearest of kins of Margarita Torres, who died in Tanza, Cavite on December 20, 1931. Issue: Is this tantamount to judicial admission Held: No. In the Amended Complaint filed by private respondents in the same Ejectment Case, the underlined portion was deleted so that the statement simply read: That the plaintiffs are the legal heirs and nearest of kin of Margarita Torres, who died at Tanza, Cavite, on December 20, 1931. In virtue thereof, the Amended Complaint takes the place of the original. The latter is regarded as abandoned and ceases to perform any further function as a pleading. The original complaint no longer forms part of the record. If petitioner had desired to utilize the original complaint she should have offered it in evidence. Having been amended, the original complaint lost its character as a judicial admission, which would have required no proof, and became merely an extrajudicial admission, the admissibility of which, as evidence, required its formal offer. Contrary to petitioner's submission, therefore there can be no estoppel by extrajudicial admission made in the original complaint, for failure to offer it in evidence. It should be noted that in the Partition Case private respondents, in their Answer (parag. 4), denied the legitimacy of petitioner.