005 City of Manila v.

Garcia
G.R. No. L-26053; February 21, 1967
TOPIC: Judicial Notice
PONENTE: Justice Sanchez

AUTHOR: TRICIA C.

FACTS:
Plaintiff City of Manila is the owner of parcels of land, forming one compact area in Malate, Manila, which are covered by
Torrens Titles. Shortly after liberation from 1945 to 1947, defendants (including Garcia) entered upon these premises
without the Citys knowledge and consent. They built houses of second-class materials, again without plaintiff's knowledge
and consent, and without the necessary building permits from the city and there they lived thru the years to the present.
Sometime in November 1947, the presence of defendants having previously been discovered, plaintiff through its mayor
gave each defendant written permits, each labeled as lease contract to occupy specific areas. Defendants Isabelo
Obaob and Gerardo Garcia received their permits from Mayor Manuel de la Fuente on January 29 and March 18,
respectively, both of 1948. The rest of the 23 defendants exhibited none. For their occupancy, defendants were charged
nominal rentals.chan
Epifanio de los Santos Elementary School which was close to the property, was made subject for expansion. The City
(plaintiff), through an Ordinance passed by the Municipal Board, set aside an amount of P100K for the construction of an
additional building of the said school.
Later on, plaintiffs City Engineer gave each of defendants 30 days to vacate and remove his construction or improvement
on the premises pursuant to the Mayor's directive to clear squatters' houses on city property. This was followed by the City
Treasurer's demand on each defendant, made in February and March, 1962, for the payment of the amount due by reason
of the occupancy and to vacate in 15 days. Defendants refused. Hence, a civil suit was filed to recover possession.
The trial court directed defendants to vacate the premises; to pay the amounts heretofore indicated opposite their
respective names; and to pay their monthly rentals from March, 1962, until they vacate the said premises, and the costs.
Defendants appealed.
ISSUE(S): Whether or not the trial court properly found that the city needs the premises for school purposes?
HELD: YES. The trial court ruled out the admissibility of the documentary evidence Certification of the Chairman,
Committee on Appropriations of the Municipal Board which recites the amount that been set aside in Ordinance 4566 for
the construction of additional building of the said school presented by plaintiff during the trial. However, in the
decision under review, the trial court judge revised his views. He declared that there was a need for defendants to
vacate the premises for school expansion and in which he cited the very document.
JUDGMENT UNDER REVIEW AFFIRMED. COSTS AGAINST DEFENDANTS.
RATIO:
Where the trial court during the trial rejected a certain exhibit as inadmissible but in its decision, it relied on that
same exhibit to support its holding, and no motion for reconsideration was filed on that point, the appellate court
will not reopen the case solely for that purpose, since a court may alter its ruling while the case is within its power
to make it conformable to law and justice.
The elimination of the certification as evidence would not profit defendants. For, in reversing his stand, the trial
court judge could well have taken, because he was duty bound to take, judicial notice of Ordinance 4566. The
reason being that the city charter of Manila requires all courts sitting therein to take judicial notice of all ordinances
passed by the municipal board of Manila. And, Ordinance 4566 itself confirms the certification aforesaid that an
appropriation of P100K was set aside for the "construction of additional building" of the Epifanio de los Santos
Elementary School.
Further defendants entry to the said property is illegal. The City of Manila may eject the occupants of its land, who
possess the same under permits revocable upon thirty days notice, especially where said occupants were
originally squatters thereon. The Mayor of Manila cannot legalize forcible entry into public property by the simple
expedient of giving permits, or for that matter, by executing leases. Squatting is unlawful. No amount of
acquiescence on the part of the City officials will elevate it into a lawful act. Such permits are void.
CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE:
Where the trial court during the trial rejected a certain exhibit as inadmissible but in its decision it relied on that
same exhibit to support its holding, and no motion for reconsideration was filed on that point, the appellate court
will not reopen the case solely for that purpose, since a court may alter its ruling while the case is within its power
to make it conformable to law and justice.

The charter of Manila requires all courts sitting therein to take judicial notice of all ordinances passed by the
municipal board.

DISSENTING/CONCURRING OPINION(S):