FACTS:
Plus Builders, Inc., herein respondent, is in
charge of the construction and sale of the houses at
Bahayang Pag-asa Subdivision. Spouses Binarao,
petitioners, purchased a house and lot in Bahayang Pag-
asa Subdivision for a total price of P327,491.95.
Petitioner Jose Binarao executed an Affidavit of
Undertaking on Equity whereby he agreed to pay
respondent P96,791.95. Later, he paid the amount of
P20,000.00 to respondent, leaving a balance of
P65,571.22 payable in three installments.
For failure of the petitoners to compy with the
undertaking, respondent filed with the MTC a complaint
for a sum of money against petitioners. MTC ruled in
favor of Plus Builders.
On appeal, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 7, Manila,
rendered a Decision3 dated November 23, 2001,
affirming in toto the MTC Decision, holding that
petitioners, in their answer, did not deny respondent’s
allegation in its complaint that they have still an
outstanding balance of P65,571.22. What is denied by
petitioners in their answer, if at all, is the fact that there
is no agreed payment plan. But, as to the fact, that
petitioners still owe P65,571.22, as balance after
payment of P20,000.00, is admitted by petitioners as
this fact is never denied by them.
On petion for review to the CA, it affirmed in toto the
RTC Decision. Hence this petition.
ISSUE:
WON petitioners admitted absolutely in their
answer their liability.
HELD:
Yes.
Sec. 4, Rule 129 of the Revised Rules of Court provides:
"Sec. 4. Judicial admissions. – An admission, verbal or
written, made by a party in the course of the
proceedings in the same case, does not require proof.
The admission may be contradicted only by showing
that it was made through palpable mistake or that no
such admission was made."
A party may make judicial admissions in (a) the
pleadings, (b) during the trial, either by verbal or written
manifestations or stipulations, or (c) in other stages of
the judicial proceeding.5
Here, petitioners admitted in their answer the allegation
in paragraph 4 of respondent’s complaint. As correctly
ruled by the Court of Appeals, petitioners admitted that:
(a) they paid the amount of P20,000.00; (b) they still
have a balance of P65,571.72; and (c) the unpaid
balance is to be paid in three installments. It is well-
settled that judicial admissions cannot be contradicted
by the admitter who is the party himself and binds the
person who makes the same, and absent any showing
that this was made thru palpable mistake (as in this
case) , no amount of rationalization can offset it.
G.R. No. 174154, October 17, 2008
JESUS CUENCO vs. TALISAY TOURIST SPORTS COMPLEX,
INCORPORATED and MATIAS B. AZNAR III
EVIDENCE CASE DIGESTS | RULE 129
14
FACTS:
Cuenco leased from respondent a property to be
operated as a cockpit. Upon expiration of the contract,
Talisay Sports Complex conducted a public bidding for
the lease of the property, which Cuenco also
participated. The lease was eventually awarded to
another bidder. Thereafter, Cuenco demanded through
several demand letters for the return of his deposit in
the sum of P500k. However, all remained unheeded.
