Professional Documents
Culture Documents
*
G.R. No. 159507. April 19, 2006.
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001615a723155afdc5bc4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/25
2/3/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 487
* FIRST DIVISION.
463
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001615a723155afdc5bc4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/25
2/3/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 487
464
465
particular locality not only has the intention to reside therein but
also the personal presence therein, coupled with conduct indicative
of such intention.—Petitioner Saludo was the congressman or
representative of Southern Leyte at the time of filing of his
complaint with the court a quo. Absent any evidence to the
contrary, he is deemed to possess the qualifications for the said
position, including that he was a resident therein. And following
the definition of the term “residence” for purposes of election law,
petitioner Saludo not only had the intention to reside in Southern
Leyte, but he also had personal presence therein, coupled with
conduct indicative of such intention. The latter element, or his
bodily presence as an inhabitant in Southern Leyte, was sufficient
for petitioner Saludo to be considered a resident therein for
purposes of venue.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Community Tax Certificates; The
fact that a party’s community tax certificate was issued in a place
other than where he claims to be a resident of is of no moment
because the same does not preclude his having a residence in
another locality for purposes of venue.—The fact then that
petitioner Saludo’s community tax certificate was issued at Pasay
City is of no moment because granting arguendo that he could be
considered a resident therein, the same does not preclude his
having a residence in Southern Leyte for purposes of venue. A
man can have but one domicile for one and the same purpose at
any time, but he may have numerous places of residence.
Evidence; Judicial Notice; Words and Phrases; Courts are
allowed “to take judicial notice of matters which are of public
knowledge, or are capable of unquestionable demonstration, or
ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions”;
The concept of “facts of common knowledge” in the context of
judicial notice has been explained as those facts that are “so
commonly known in the community as to make it unprofitable to
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001615a723155afdc5bc4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/25
2/3/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 487
466
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001615a723155afdc5bc4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/25
2/3/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 487
forum shopping that states that the petitioner read the contents of
the petition and that the same are true and correct of his own
personal knowledge and belief and on the basis of the records at
hand, clearly constitutes substantial compliance with the
requirements of the Rules of Court.—Section 4, Rule 7 of the Rules
of Court reads: Sec. 4. Verification.—Except when otherwise
specifically required by law or rule, pleadings need not be under
oath, verified or accompanied by affidavit. A pleading is verified
by an affidavit that the affiant has read the pleading and that the
allegations therein are true and correct of his personal knowledge
or based on authentic records. A pleading required to be verified
which contains a verification based on “information and belief,” or
upon “knowledge, information and
467
_______________
468
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001615a723155afdc5bc4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/25
2/3/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 487
“x x x [T]he fact alone that the plaintiff at the time he filed the
complaint was and still is, the incumbent Congressman of the
Lone District of Southern Leyte with residence at Ichon,
Macrohon, Southern Leyte, is enough to dispell any and all doubts
about his actual residence. As a high-ranking government official
of the province, his residence there can be taken judicial notice of.
As such his personal, actual and physical habitation or his actual
residence or place of abode can never be in some other place but in
Ichon, Macrohon, Southern Leyte. It is correctly stated by the
plaintiff, citing the case of Core v. Core, 100 Phil. 321 that,
“residence, for purposes of fixing venue of an action, is
synonymous with domicile. This is defined as the permanent
home, the place to which, whenever absent for business or
pleasure, one intends to return, and depends on the facts and
circumstances, in the sense that they disclose intent. A person can
have but one domicile at a time. A man can have but one domicile
for one and the same purpose at any time, but he may have
numerous places of residence. Venue could be 3at place of his
residence. (Masa v. Mison, 200 SCRA 715 [1991])”
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001615a723155afdc5bc4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/25
2/3/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 487
_______________
471
2002. They then filed with the appellate court a petition for
certiorari and prohibition alleging grave abuse of discretion
on the part of the presiding judge of the court a quo in
issuing the September 10, 2001 and January 2, 2002
Orders. Upon respondents’ posting of a bond, the appellate
court issued on March 14, 2002 a temporary restraining
order which enjoined the presiding judge of the court a quo
from conducting further proceedings in Civil Case No. R-
3172.
On May 22, 2003, the appellate court rendered the
assailed decision granting respondents’ petition for
certiorari as it found that venue was improperly laid. It
directed the court a quo to vacate and set aside its Orders
dated September 10, 2001 and January 2, 2002, and
enjoined the presiding judge thereof from further
proceeding in the case, except to dismiss the complaint.
The appellate court explained that the action filed by
petitioner Saludo against respondents is governed by
Section 2, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court. The said rule on
venue of personal actions basically provides that personal
actions may be commenced and tried where plaintiff or any
of the principal plaintiffs resides, or where defendant or
any of the principal defendants resides, at the election of
plaintiff.
Venue was improperly laid in the court a quo, according
to the appellate court, because not one of the parties was a
resident of Southern Leyte. Specifically, it declared that
petitioner Saludo was not a resident thereof. The appellate
court pronounced that, for purposes of venue, the residence
of a person is his personal, actual or physical habitation, or
his actual residence or place of abode, which may not
necessarily be his legal residence or domicile provided
4
he
resides therein with continuity and consistency.
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001615a723155afdc5bc4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/25
2/3/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 487
4 Citing Boleyley v. Hon. Villanueva, 373 Phil. 141, 146; 314 SCRA 364,
368 (1999).
472
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001615a723155afdc5bc4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/25
2/3/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 487
6 Id., at p. 305.
7 Local Government Code of 1991.
473
the place8
where the principal office of the juridical entity is
located. It also pointed out that petitioner Saludo’s law
office, which was also representing him in the present case,
is in Pasay City. The foregoing circumstances were
considered by the appellate court as judicial admissions of
petitioner Saludo which are conclusive upon him and no
longer required proof.
The appellate court chided the court a quo for stating
that as incumbent congressman of the lone district of
Southern Leyte, judicial notice could be taken of the fact of
petitioner Saludo’s residence thereat. No evidence had yet
been adduced that petitioner Saludo was then the
congressman of Southern Leyte and actual resident of
Ichon, Macrohon of the said province.
The appellate court held that, based on his complaint,
petitioner Saludo was actually residing in Pasay City. It
faulted him for filing his complaint with the court a quo
when the said venue is inconvenient to the parties to the
case. It opined that under the rules, the possible choices of
venue are Pasay City or Makati City, or any place in the
National Capital Judicial Region, at the option of petitioner
Saludo.
It stressed that while the choice of venue is given to
plaintiff, said choice is not left to his caprice and cannot
deprive a defendant
9
of the rights conferred upon him by the
Rules of Court. Further, fundamental in the law governing
venue of actions that the situs for bringing real and
personal civil actions is fixed by the rules to attain the
greatest possible convenience to the party litigants by
taking into consideration the maximum accessibility to
them—i.e., to both plaintiff and defendant,
10
not only to one
or the other—of the courts of justice.
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001615a723155afdc5bc4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/25
2/3/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 487
474
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001615a723155afdc5bc4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/25
2/3/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 487
475
_______________
13 Id., at p. 10.
476
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001615a723155afdc5bc4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/25
2/3/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 487
_______________
477
_______________
478
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001615a723155afdc5bc4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/25
2/3/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 487
can have but one domicile for one and the same purpose at any time, but
he may have numerous places of residence. His place of residence
generally is his place of domicile, but is not by any means, necessarily so
since no length of residence without intention of remaining will
constitute domicile.’ (Italicized for emphasis)
479
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001615a723155afdc5bc4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/25
2/3/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 487
_______________
480
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001615a723155afdc5bc4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 18/25
2/3/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 487
_______________
481
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001615a723155afdc5bc4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 19/25
2/3/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 487
_______________
482
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001615a723155afdc5bc4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 20/25
2/3/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 487
_______________
27 See, for example, Dangwa Transportation Co., Inc. v. Sarmiento, supra note
17, at p. 127.
483
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001615a723155afdc5bc4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 21/25
2/3/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 487
_______________
484
_______________
Judicial notice, when mandatory.—A court shall take judicial notice, without the
introduction of evidence, of the existence and territorial extent of states, their
political history, forms of government and symbols of nationality, the law of
nations, the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals, the
political constitution and history of the Philippines, the official acts of the
legislative, executive and judicial departments of the Philippines, the laws of
nature, the measure of time, and the geographical divisions.
485
accompanied by affidavit.
A pleading is verified by an affidavit that the affiant has read
the pleading and that the allegations therein are true and correct
of his personal knowledge or based on authentic records.
A pleading required to be verified which contains a verification
based on “information and belief,” or upon “knowledge,
information and belief,” or lacks proper verification, shall be
treated as an unsigned pleading.”
SO ORDERED.
——o0o——
487
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001615a723155afdc5bc4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 25/25