Rule 132 of the rules of court provides in section 35

"Y", the evidence mentioned in the quoted transcript.
Rule 132 of the Rules of Court provides in Section 35
thereof as follows:
EVIDENCE CASE DIGESTS | RULE 129 7

Sec. 35. Offer of evidence .—The court shall
consider no evidence which has not been
formally offered. The purpose for which the
evidence is offered must be specified.
The mere fact that a particular document is marked as
an exhibit does not mean it has thereby already been
offered as part of the evidence of a party. It is true that
Exhibits "A," "B" and "C" were marked at the pre-trial of
the case below, but this was only for the purpose of
identifying them at that time. They were not by such
marking formally offered as exhibits.
2. It conceded that as a general rule "courts are not
authorized to take judicial notice, in the adjudication of
cases pending before them, of the contents of the
records of other cases, even when such cases have been
tried or are pending in the same court, and
notwithstanding the fact that both cases may have been
heard or are actually pending before the same
judge. Nevertheless, it applied the exception that:
. . . in the absence of objection, and as a matter
of convenience to all parties, a court may
properly treat all or any part of the original
record of a case filed in its archives as read into
the record of a case pending before it, when,
with the knowledge of the opposing party,
reference is made to it for that purpose, by
name and number or in some other manner by
which it is sufficiently designated; or when the
original record of the former case or any part of
it, is actually withdrawn from the archives by
the court's direction, at the request or with the
consent of the parties, and admitted as a part of
the record of the case then pending.
It is clear, though, that this exception is applicable only
when, "in the absence of objection," "with the
knowledge of the opposing party," or "at the request or
with the consent of the parties," the case is clearly
referred to or "the original or part of the records of the
case are actually withdrawn from the archives" and
"admitted as part of the record of the case then
pending." These conditions have not been established
here. On the contrary, the petitioner was completely
unaware that his testimony in Civil Case No. 1327 was
being considered by the trial court in the case then
pending before it.
G.R. No. 144570
VIVENCIO V. JUMAMIL, Petitioner, - versus JOSE J.
CAFE, et al. Respondents.
FACTS: Petitioner Jumamil filed before the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Panabo, Davao del Norte a petition for
declaratory relief with prayer for preliminary injunction
and writ of restraining order against public respondents
Mayor Jose J. Cafe and the members of
the Sangguniang Bayan of Panabo, Davao del Norte. He
questioned the constitutionality of Municipal Resolution
No. 7, Series of 1989 (Resolution No. 7).