Judicial Notice When Discretionary

When Discretionary
1. Matters of public knowledge
2. Matters capable of unquestionable demonstration
3. Matters which ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions.

The mere personal knowledge of the judge is not the judicial knowledge of the court.

Judicial cognizance is taken only of those matters which are commonly known.

It is not essential that matters of judicial cognizance be actually known to the judge; if the subject is proper for judicial knowledge, the judge may, at his discretion, inform himself in any way which may seem best to him and act accordingly.

The doctrine of judicial notice rests on the wisdom and discretion of the courts. The power to take judicial notice is to be exercised by courts with caution; care must be taken that the requisite notoriety exists, and every reasonable doubt upon the subject should be promptly resolved in the negative.

Foreign laws may not be taken judicial notice of and have to be proved like any other fact EXCEPT where said laws are within the actual knowledge of the court, such as when they are well and generally known or they have been actually ruled upon in other cases before it and none of the parties claim otherwise.

To prove a written foreign law, the requirements must be complied with, that is, by an official publication or by a duly attested and authenticated copy thereof.

Doctrine of Processual Presumption
Absent any of the evidence or admission, the foreign law is presumed to be the same as that in the Philippines.

Three instances when a Philippine court can take judicial notice of 
a foreign law are:
1. When the Philippine courts are evidently familiar with the foreign law
2. When the foreign law refers to the law of nations (Sec.1 of Rule 129)
3. When it refers to a published treatise, periodical, or pamphlet on the subject of law, if the court takes judicial notice of the fact that the writer thereof is recognized in his profession or calling on the subject. (Sec.46, Rule 130)