Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 138 views

    Rule 129 - METROBANK v. MIRANDA

    Uploaded by

    Gyrsyl Jaisa Guerrero
    The Regional Trial Court annulled Metrobank's extrajudicial foreclosure on properties owned by the Miranda spouses. Metrobank appealed, arguing the trial court improperly took judicial notice of records from the foreclosure proceedings. The Supreme Court ruled the trial court was within its authority to take judicial notice because the foreclosure records were closely connected to determining whether notice requirements were met. It affirmed the annulment due to lack of proof of publication in the foreclosure records.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Rule 129 - METROBANK v. MIRANDA

    Uploaded by

    Gyrsyl Jaisa Guerrero
    138 views7 pages
    The Regional Trial Court annulled Metrobank's extrajudicial foreclosure on properties owned by the Miranda spouses. Metrobank appealed, arguing the trial court improperly took judicial notice of records from the foreclosure proceedings. The Supreme Court ruled the trial court was within its authority to take judicial notice because the foreclosure records were closely connected to determining whether notice requirements were met. It affirmed the annulment due to lack of proof of publication in the foreclosure records.

    Original Description:

    Evidence

    Original Title

    Rule 129- METROBANK v. MIRANDA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Regional Trial Court annulled Metrobank's extrajudicial foreclosure on properties owned by the Miranda spouses. Metrobank appealed, arguing the trial court improperly took judicial notice of records from the foreclosure proceedings. The Supreme Court ruled the trial court was within its authority to take judicial notice because the foreclosure records were closely connected to determining whether notice requirements were met. It affirmed the annulment due to lack of proof of publication in the foreclosure records.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    138 views7 pages

    Rule 129 - METROBANK v. MIRANDA

    Uploaded by

    Gyrsyl Jaisa Guerrero
    The Regional Trial Court annulled Metrobank's extrajudicial foreclosure on properties owned by the Miranda spouses. Metrobank appealed, arguing the trial court improperly took judicial notice of records from the foreclosure proceedings. The Supreme Court ruled the trial court was within its authority to take judicial notice because the foreclosure records were closely connected to determining whether notice requirements were met. It affirmed the annulment due to lack of proof of publication in the foreclosure records.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 7

    Metro Bank v.

    Miranda
    G.R. No. 187917 January 19, 2011
    Facts:
    • Spouses Miranda obtained several credit
    accommodations from Metrobank and
    executed real estate mortgages as
    securities for the loans incurred.

    • Metrobank caused an extrajudicial


    foreclosure and auction sale of the
    mortgaged properties.
    *Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio
    Sheriff of Santiago City
    2
    Facts:
    Sps. Miranda sought for the nullification of
    the foreclosure proceedings and damages on
    the ground of publication requirement.
    *with the Regional Trial Court of Santiago City

    The Regional Trial Court annulled the


    extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings.

    The Regional Trial Court reviewed the


    records of the foreclosure proceedings and
    found no proof of publication of the sheriff’s
    notice of sale; there was no affidavit of
    publication attached to the records.

    3
    Metro Bank claims that the trial court may not take judicial
    notice of the records of proceedings in another case, unless
    the parties themselves agreed to it.

    As required by Section 3 of Rule 129, Metrobank asserts


    that:
    ╸ it did not give its consent to the trial court’s
    examination of the records of the extrajudicial
    foreclosure proceedings
    ╸ The court did not even set a hearing for the purpose of
    declaring its intention to take judicial notice of the
    records of the extrajudicial proceedings
    Thus, contends that the Regional Trial Court exceeded its
    authority in taking cognizance of the records of the
    extrajudicial proceedings.

    4
    Issue:
    Whether or not the Regional Trial
    Court has the authority to take
    cognizance of the records of the
    foreclosure proceedings.

    YES

    5
    Held:
    As a rule, courts do not take judicial notice of the
    evidence presented in other proceedings, even if these
    have been tried or are pending in the same court or
    before the same judge. This rule, however, is not
    absolute.
    In Juaban v. Espina and "G" Holdings, Inc. v. National Mines and
    Allied Workers Union Local (NAMAWU)

    The court held that, in some instances, courts have


    also taken judicial notice of proceedings in other cases
    that are closely connected to the matter in controversy.
    These cases may be so closely interwoven, or so
    clearly interdependent, as to invoke a rule of
    judicial notice.
    6
    Held:
    The Regional Trial Court, therefore, acted well
    within its authority in taking cognizance of the
    records of the extrajudicial foreclosure
    proceedings, and the Court of Appeals cannot
    be faulted for sustaining the Regional Trial
    Court.

    You might also like