CITY OF MANILA vs. GARCIA 5.

CFI initially ruled in favor of the respondents, because the Certification

No. L-26053; 21 February 1967 of Ordinance 4566 was not admitted in evidence. However, the CFI reversed
Topic: Judicial Admissions | Ponente: J. Sanchez | Author: MINA itself and admitted the Certification of Ordinance 4566 in evidence. (There
was no mention on why it was not admitted initially, nor why it reversed.)

Doctrine: ISSUE:

The charter of Manila requires all courts sitting therein to take judicial WON Certification of Ordinance 4566 may be admitted in evidence – YES!
notice of all ordinances passed by the municipal board.
RATIO:

Even assuming arguendo that the Certification of Ordinance 4566 was not
Emergency Recit:
admitted in evidence, the respondents would still not profit from it. For, in
reversing its own decision, the CFI judge could well have taken judicial
The City of Manila passed an Ordinance to build additional building of the
notice of the ordinance because he was duty bound to do so. The reason is
EDS School. However, the property where the city plans to construct the
that the City Charter of Manila requires all courts sitting therein to take
building have squatters in it. The City demanded to vacate and pay rents
judicial notice of all ordinances passed by the municipal board of Manila.
from the respondents to no avail. A case was filed. The City presented a
And Ordinance 4566 itself confirms the certification that an appropriation
Certification of the Ordinance as evidence. It was initially not admitted, but
of P100,000 was set aside for the construction of additional building of the
was reversed by the CFI judge itself. The SC ruled that even if the
Epifanio Delos Santos Elementary School.
certification of the ordinance was not admitted in evidence, it will still be
considered because according to the city charter of Manila, judges are duty
bound to take judicial notice of all ordinances passed by the municipal
board.

FACTS:

1. After WWII, defendants entered a land owned by the City of Manila in

Malate, without petitioner’s knowledge and consent. They further built their
houses using second-class materials. In short, they are squatters.

2. In 1947 and 1948, the mayors then, issued a lease contract to the
respondents, upon which the respondents base their rights as tenants of the
property.

3. A case ensued between the petitioners and respondents when the City of
Manila passed Ordinance 4566 to expand the Epifanio Delos Santos
Elementary School, located adjacent to the subject property. The ordinance
contained the allocated budget of the government, which amounts to
P100,000 for the additional buildings.

4. A demand to vacate the premises and pay the rent was made by the
petitioner to the respondents, but the respondents did not heed its request,
and stubbornly argues their status as tenants.