FACTS: Plus Builders, Inc., herein respondent, is incharge of the construction and sale of the houses atBahayang 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 ofUndertaking on Equity whereby he agreed to payrespondent P96,791.95. Later, he paid the amount ofP20,000.00 to respondent, leaving a balance ofP65,571.22 payable in three installments.For failure of the petitoners to compy with theundertaking, respondent filed with the MTC a complaintfor a sum of money against petitioners. MTC ruled infavor 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 thatpetitioners, in their answer, did not deny respondent’sallegation in its complaint that they have still anoutstanding balance of P65,571.22. What is denied bypetitioners in their answer, if at all, is the fact that thereis no agreed payment plan. But, as to the fact, thatpetitioners still owe P65,571.22, as balance afterpayment of P20,000.00, is admitted by petitioners asthis fact is never denied by them.On petion for review to the CA, it affirmed in toto theRTC Decision. Hence this petition.ISSUE:WON petitioners admitted absolutely in theiranswer their liability.HELD:Yes.Sec. 4, Rule 129 of the Revised Rules of Court provides:"Sec. 4. Judicial admissions. – An admission, verbal orwritten, made by a party in the course of theproceedings in the same case, does not require proof.The admission may be contradicted only by showingthat it was made through palpable mistake or that nosuch admission was made."A party may make judicial admissions in (a) thepleadings, (b) during the trial, either by verbal or writtenmanifestations or stipulations, or (c) in other stages ofthe judicial proceeding.5Here, petitioners admitted in their answer the allegationin paragraph 4 of respondent’s complaint. As correctlyruled by the Court of Appeals, petitioners admitted that:(a) they paid the amount of P20,000.00; (b) they stillhave a balance of P65,571.72; and (c) the unpaidbalance is to be paid in three installments. It is well-settled that judicial admissions cannot be contradictedby the admitter who is the party himself and binds theperson who makes the same, and absent any showingthat this was made thru palpable mistake (as in thiscase) , no amount of rationalization can offset it.G.R. No. 174154, October 17, 2008JESUS CUENCO vs. TALISAY TOURIST SPORTS COMPLEX,INCORPORATED and MATIAS B. AZNAR IIIEVIDENCE CASE DIGESTS | RULE 12914
FACTS: Cuenco leased from respondent a property to beoperated as a cockpit. Upon expiration of the contract,Talisay Sports Complex conducted a public bidding forthe lease of the property, which Cuenco alsoparticipated. The lease was eventually awarded toanother bidder. Thereafter, Cuenco demanded throughseveral demand letters for the return of his deposit inthe sum of P500k. However, all remained unheeded.