77.) Republic of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No.

119288 August 18 1997 Facts: Lot 5376 is claimed by Josefa Gacot and Ceferino Sabenicio as co-owner. Before t e earin! of t e case" t e co#rt recei$ed a re%ort from t e Land &e!istration '#t ority callin! its attention of t e decision rendered by J#d!e Garlitos on (ctober )*" +,5* declarin! t e said lot as %ro%erty of t e &e%#blic of t e - ili%%ines. . e claimant %resented erself as well as er son t at s e was in act#al %ossession of t e %ro%erty for more t an 3* years. . e alle!ed co-owner as wai$ed is claim o$er said land. .rial Co#rt r#led in fa$or of Josefa Gacot. . e &e%#blic" t r# t e Solicitor General ele$ated t e case to C'. /t t #s filed a motion to a$e t e case reo%ened and remanded to t e co#rt a 0#o to allow t e &e%#blic to %resent t e decision of J#d!e Garlitos. /t ar!#ed t at t e co#rt a 0#o did not 'c0#ire 1#risdiction o$er t e claim since Josefa did not file er answer wit in t e %eriod fi2ed by &.'. )*6+. 3nfort#nately" t e &e%#blic failed to offer as its e2 ibit t e said order. C' !ranted t e motion. 4#rin! t e re earin!" owe$er" t e &e%#blic failed to %resent t e said order of t e J#d!e in e$idence. /ss#e: 5 et er or not t e re%#blic failed to offer as its e2 ibit t e order of J#d!e Garlitos dated (ctober )*" +,5* #%on re earin! of t e case 6eld: /t is t e r#le t at t e Co#rt s all consider no e$idence w ic as not been formally offered 7&#le +3)" Section 389. &#les of %roced#re and 1#ris%r#dence do not sanction t e !rant of e$identiary $al#e in ordinary trial of e$idence w ic is not formally offered. ' co#rt will ta:e 1#dicial notice of its own acts and records in t e same case" t e facts establis ed in %rior %roceedin!s in t e same case of t e a#t enticity of its own records of anot er case between t e same %arties of t e files of related cases in t e same co#rt of %#blic records on file in t e same co#rt. . e case is remanded to t e .rial Co#rt for f#rt er %roceedin!s for it to ascertain and resol$e t e conflictin! claims of t e %arties.

78.) !P"#$a%il& 'avings !an( vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 122)8* April 12 2*** Facts: -etitioner in its +,;, /ncome .a2 &et#rn s ows t at it ad a ref#ndable amo#nt of ),7" 8,) incl#si$e of ++)" 8,+. 6owe$er" %etitioner declared in t e same ret#rn t at t e said ref#ndable amo#nt will be a%%lied as ta2 credit to t e s#cceedin! years. /n +,,*" %etitioner claimed for ref#nd in t e amo#nt of ++)"8,+ wit t e C/& alle!in! t at id did not a%%ly t e +,;, ref#ndable amo#nt to its +,,* 'nn#al /ncome ta2 &et#rn d#e to alle!ed losses it inc#rred for t e same year. 3%on %etition to t e C.'" it dismissed said %etition on t e !ro#nd t at %etitioner failed to %resent as e$idence its Cor%orate 'nn#al /ncome .a2 &et#rn for +,,* to establis t e fact claimed by im. C' affirmed C.' r#lin! t at a$in! failed to s#bmit t e re0#irement" t ere<s no basis to !rant t e claim for ref#nd. /ss#e: 5 et er o not C' is correct in affirmin! t e r#lin! of t e C.' 6eld: =o. /n t e first %lace" %etitioner %resented e$idence to %ro$e its claim t at it did not a%%ly t e ref#ndable amo#nt as a ta2 credit. >ore im%ortant" a co%y of t e Final 'd1#stment &et#rn for +,,* was attac ed to %etitioner<s >& filed before t e C.'. . e B/& did not e$en contro$ert t e $eracity of said ret#rn. .r#e" strict %roced#ral r#les !enerally frown #%on s#bmission of t e ret#rn after t e trial. . e law creatin! t e C.'" owe$er" s%ecifically" %ro$ides t at %roceedin! s before it s all not be !o$erned strictly by t e tec nical r#les of e$idence. . e %aramo#nt consideration remains t e ascertainment of tr#t . ?erily" t e 0#est for orderly %resentation of iss#es is not absol#te. /t s o#ld not bar co#rts from considerin! #ndis%#ted facts to arri$e at a 1#st determination of t e contro$ersy.

79.) Cala%ba 'teel Center "nc. vs. C"R G.R. No. 1+18+7 April 28 2**+ Facts: Calamba Steel" /nc. is a domestic cor%oration en!a!ed in t e man#fact#re of steel blan:s for #se by man#fact#rers of a#tomoti$e" electrical" electronics in ind#strial and o#se old a%%liances. /t filed an amended cor%orate ann#al income ta2 on +,,6 declarin! a net ta2able income of ,.8 million" ta2 credit of 6.7 million and ta2 d#e in t e amo#nt of 3.3 million. /t also re%orted 0#arterly %ayments for t e second and t ird 0#arter of +,,5 in t e amo#nt of ).3 million and +.; million res%ecti$ely. . e %etitioner contended in t e +,,7 case t at it is entitled to a ref#nd w ic was d#e to t e income ta2 wit eld and remitted in its be alf by wit oldin! a!ents. S#c wit eld as indicated in t e +,,7 ret#rn were not #tili@ed in +,,6 d#e to its income loss for t e t ree 0#arters of +,,6. /ss#e: 5 et er or not t e ta2 ref#nd maybe claimed e$en beyond t e ta2able year followin! t e ta2 credit arises 6eld: Aes. B#t t e claimant m#st %ro$e t at it is entitled to ta2 ref#nd. Calamba steel as com%lied owe$er wit t e re0#irements as im%osed by t e =/&C. . e act of t e co#nsel in s#bmittin! t e final ad1#stment after t e trial as been cond#cted was acce%ted by t e co#rt beca#se t e r#les of ordinary %roced#re are a%%lied s#%%letorily. >oreo$er" t e co#rt said t at 1#dicial notice co#ld a$e been ta:en by t e C' and t e C.' of t e +,,6 final ad1#stment ret#rn made by t e Calamba Steel in anot er case %endin! in t e C.'.