Respondent after the World War II, entered, settled, and constructed buildings in the property of the Petitioner without its consent. When the petitioner found out the said forced entry in its property, it entered into an agreement with the respondents a lease contract. Years later, the petitioner, to expand its public school, ordered the respondent to leave the said premises and pay the unpaid rentals. Refusing to vacant the said premises, the petitioner went to court to have the respondents evicted from the said property. The court initially sided with the respondents, however, after taking judicial notice on the ordinance of the petitioner, rendered a decision against the respondents. Hence the Respondents elevated this case to the SC.
Whether the Court may alter its decision to take judicial notice of all ordinances passed by the municipal board of Manila.
Yes, in reversing his stand, the trial judge could well have taken because it 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 P100,000.00 was set aside for the “construction of additional building” of the Epifanio de los Santos Elementary School.
One thought on “City of Manila v. Garcia, GR L-26053, 21 February 1967”