G.R. No. 177809 October 16, 2009 SPOUSES OMAR and MOSHIERA LATIP vs. ROSALIE PALAÑA CHUA

Rosalie Chua who owns Roferxane Bldg. located in Paranaque, entered into a 6-year lease contract with spouses Latip for 2 cubicles in the building on December 1999.

A year later as the cubicles were occupied by spouses Latip, Chua filed a complaint in the MeTC for unlawful detainer to spouses Latip after repeatedly ignoring demand letters of payment from Chua for back rentals. In their answer, spouses Latip asserted that sometime on Oct. 1999, Chua offered for sale the lease rights over the 2 cubicles in which spouses Latip paid for as evidence by 3 receipts for the total amount of P2,570,000.

MeTC ruled in favor of Chua thus evicting spouses Latip from the building.

Spouses Latip appealed in the RTC and such court ruled to reverse the MeTC's decision. RTC says that they did not find the lease contract credible as it was not notarized and some substantial information are not complete. RTC believes spouses Latip’s claim that the contract was modified and paid in full. Chua refutes saying that the P2,570,000 is payment for goodwill by prospective lessees. RTC declared and existent lease for the period of 6 years that was fully paid and that spouses Latip should not be evicted until the lease period expires.

Chua appeals to the CA, which reversed the RTC decision and reinstated the MeTC decision. CA says that although lacking some elements the contract presented by Chua is still valid. CA says that the P2,570,000 payment was that of goodwill as it took JUDICIAL NOTICE to common practices in Baclaran area. The JUDICIAL NOTICE of such practice was based and supported by the joint sworn declaration of stallholders at Roferxane Bldg. That they paid goodwill to Chua before occupying the stalls.

Hence spouses Latip appeals to the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

1. WON spouses Latip should be ejected from the leased cubicles.

2. WON CA erred, in ruling for Rosalie and upholding the ejectment of Spouses Latip,  in taking judicial notice of the alleged practice of prospective lessees in the Baclaran area to pay goodwill money to the lessor. 

HELD:

1. SC ruled that as the contract of lease has already expired in 2005, spouses Latip can be ejected. They are liable to Chua for the unpaid rentals according to the stipulations of the lease contract but the amount of P2,570,000 shall be deducted from such liability as advanced rentals

2. SC disagreed in the taking of judicial notice of CA. 

Generally speaking, matters of judicial notice have three material requisites: (1) the matter must be one of common and general knowledge; (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.

However, in this case, the requisite of notoriety is belied by the necessity of attaching documentary evidence, i.e., the Joint Affidavit of the stallholders, to Rosalie’s appeal before the CA. In short, the alleged practice still had to be proven by Rosalie; contravening the title itself of Rule 129 of the Rules of Court – What need not be proved.

Apparently, only that particular division of the CA had knowledge of the practice to pay goodwill money in the Baclaran area. As what was held in State Prosecutors, justices and judges alike ought to be reminded that the power to take judicial notice must be exercised with caution and every reasonable doubt on the subject should be ample reason for the claim of judicial notice to be promptly resolved in the negative.