8/17/2019 Rule 129, No. 1, Land Bank v. Yatco

1/1

LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. YATCO AGRICULTURAL ENTERPRISES

G.R. NO. 172551. JANUARY 15, 2014

(judicial notice, discretionary notice of records of other cases)

FACTS: Respondent Yatco Agricultural nterprises !as t"e registered o# o!ner o# a 27$

"ectare parcel o# agricultural land %propert&' in (ala)*a, +aguna. On April 0, 1---, t"egoern)ent placed t"e propert& under t"e coerage i# it/s (o)pre"ensie AgrarianRe#or) rogra) %(AR'.

+and an o# t"e "ilippines %+' alued t"e propert& at 1,123,12.-. Yatco did not#ind t"e aluation accepta*le and t"us eleated t"e )atter to t"e epart)ent o# 

 Agrarian Re#or) %AR' roincial Agrarian Re#or) Ad6udicator %ARA', !"ic" t"enconducted su))ar& ad)inistratie proceedings #or t"e deter)ination o# 6ustco)pensation.

"e ARA alued t"e propert& at 13,54,00.00, using t"e propert& current )aret

alue. + did not )oe to reconsider t"e ARA ruling. 8nstead it #iled !it" t"e R($9A( a petition #or t"e 6udicial deter)ination o# 6ust co)pensation.

R($9A( #i:ed t"e 6ust co)pensation #or t"e propert& at 200 per s;uare )eter *asedon t"e R( *ranc" 5 and 3. R($9A( did not gie !eig"t to t"e + eidence in

 6usti#&ing its aluation, pointing out t"at t"e + #ailed to proe t"at it co)plied !it" t"eprescri*ed procedure and #ailed to consider t"e aluation in t"e (o)pre"ensie

 Agrarian Re#or) +a! %(AR+'.

"e (A dis)issed + appeal.

ISSUE< ="et"er or not R($9A(/s aluation is erroneous

RULING< "e R($9A(/s aluation is erroneous.

"e taing o# 6udicial notice is a )atter o# e:pedienc& and conenience #or it#ul#ills t"e purpose t"at t"e eidence is intended to ac"iee, and in t"is sense, it ise;uialent to proo#. Generall&, courts are not aut"ori>ed to ?tae 6udicial notice o# t"econtents o# t"e records o# ot"er cases een !"en said cases "ae *een tried or arepending in t"e sa)e court or *e#ore t"e sa)e 6udge.? "e& )a&, "o!eer, tae 6udicialnotice o# a decision or t"e #acts preailing in anot"er case sitting in t"e sa)e court i#< %1't"e parties present t"e) in eidence, a*sent an& opposition #ro) t"e ot"er part&@ or %2't"e court, in its discretion, resoles to do so. 8n eit"er case, t"e courts )ust o*sere t"e

clear *oundar& proided *& 9ection , Rule 12- o# t"e Rules o# (ourt.

=e note t"at Yatco o##ered in eidence copies o# t"e decisions in t"e ciil cases, !"ic"o##er t"e + opposed. "ese !ere dul& noted *& t"e court. en assu)ing, "o!eer,t"at t"e April 21, 2004 order o# t"e R($9A( %t"at noted Yatco/s o##er in eidence andt"e +/s opposition to it' constitutes su##icient co)pliance !it" t"e re;uire)ent o# 9ection , Rule 12- o# t"e Rules o# (ourt, still !e #ind t"e R($9A(/s aluation *asedon ranc" 3/s preious ruling to *e legall& erroneous.