2025 Syllabus Based Evidence Reviewer: Judicial Admissions

 

Section 4. Judicial admissions. An admission, oral or written, made by the 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 the imputed admission was not, in fact, made.

 

CHANGES and COMMENTS

􀁸 FIRST. From “verbal or written” to “oral or written” o With “verbal”, it means relating to or in the form of words. “Verbal” can therefore be also “written.” It might also be interpreted to mean actions as the root word is “verb.” o With “oral”, it means “by word of mouth or spoken rather than written.” o Thus, with the amendment, admissions are now clearly either spoken (by testimonies or by open court declarations) or written (by pleadings or other submissions in writing).

 

􀁸 SECOND. From “no such admission was made” to “the imputed admission was not, in fact, made” o This amendment takes into consideration applicable jurisprudence such as:

 

Admission was taken out of context or not in the sense in which the admission is made to appear (Atillo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119053, January 23, 1997) Remember, when you say imputed admission, you will not impute something against yourself.

 

Who is imputing the admission against you? It will be the adverse party who will “impute” an admission against the other party.

 

Definition

 

􀁸 Under the case law, judicial admission or an ADMISSION IN JUDICIO is a deliberate, clear, unequivocal statement by a party about a concrete fact within that party’s knowledge.

 

􀁸 Under the law on pleadings, a judicial admission is a formal concession in the pleadings or stipulations by a party or counsel that is binding on the party making them. Although a judicial admission is not itself evidence, it has the effect of withdrawing a fact from contention.

 

SPOUSES BINARAO vs. PLUS BUILDERS, INC. G.R. No. 154430, June 16, 2006 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. NOTE also that admissions can be express or implied, verbal or written. You can trace it already that from verbal or written, it now becomes oral or written. The phraseology before is verbal or written.

 

ADOLFO vs. ADOLFO G.R. No. 201427, March 18, 2015 Judicial admissions may be made in (a) the pleadings filed by the parties, (b) in the course of the trial either by verbal or written manifestations or stipulations, or (c) in other stages of the judicial proceeding, as in the pre-trial of the case. Admissions obtained through depositions, written interrogatories or requests for admission are also considered judicial admissions. The facts of this case are very interesting for it allow us to review some concepts that we have previously learned in remedial law.

 

What happened in the case of Adolfo vs. Adolfo? Note: the names of the parties are changed.

 

ADOLFO vs. ADOLFO G.R. No. 201427, March 18, 2015

 

FACTS:

 

Rrramon is married to Maja. In 2004, Rrramon filed a petition for judicial separation of property against his estranged wife. Maja answered that one of the properties is her exclusive property and therefore should not be made part of any judicial separation. Rrramon filed a Request for Admission asking Maja to admit that, in another case decided by the same court, Maja alleged in her answer that the same property is conjugal. Maja did not respond to the Request. This other case was pending appeal before the Court of Appeals. If there’s an admission that such is a conjugal property, then it will be included in the judicial separation. If it is a paraphernal property, then it is really an exclusive property of Maja. Hence, not included in the judicial separation.

 

What is the effect if you do not respond to the Request for Admission? (Take note: This is one of the modes of discovery)

 

Under Section 2, Rule 26, each of the matter of which an admission is requested shall be deemed admitted unless you deny it.

 

Section 2. Implied admission. — Each of the matters of which an admission is requested shall be deemed admitted unless, within a period designated in the request, which shall not be less than fifteen (15) days after service thereof, or within such further time as the court may allow on motion, the party to whom the request is directed files and serves upon the party requesting the admission a sworn statement either denying specifically the matters of which an admission is requested or setting forth in detail the reasons why he cannot truthfully either admit or deny those matters.

 

What was the Request for Admission about? It’s about whether you state in your pleadings in that other case that the property subject of this case is conjugal and not paraphernal. Maja did not answer so there is now an implied admission based on Rule 26.

 

What did Rrramon do now? …continuation… Rrramon filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, stating that since Maja failed to answer his request for admission, the matters contained in the request are deemed admitted pursuant to Rule 26, Section 2 and that, as a consequence of the application of the rule, Maja is in effect considered to have admitted that the subject property is a conjugal asset of their subsisting marriage which may thus be the subject of his petition for judicial separation of property. The court a quo treated Maja’s failure to respond as an admission as to the nature of the property, took judicial notice of its own judgment and records in the other case, treated the prayer for judgment on the pleadings as one for summary judgment and rendered summary judgment in favor of Rrramon.

 

There was a mistake on the part of the lawyer because what he asked was Judgment on the Pleadings, but in view of the Court, it should be for Summary Judgment.

 

When is it permissible for the court to take judicial notice of its own judgment or records in a case that is pending before it?

 

Courts may take judicial notice of a decision or the facts prevailing in another case sitting in the same court if: 1) The parties present them in evidence, absent any opposition from the other party; or 2) The court, in its discretion, resolves to do so.

 

ISSUE: Was the court a quo correct in rendering judgment in favor of Rrramon on the basis of judicial notice and the judicial admission attributable to Maja’s failure to respond to the request for admission?

 

RULING: The Supreme Court said in the matter of Judicial Notice that while there is nothing irregular with the taking of judicial notice, the trial court disregarded the fact that its decision was then the subject of a pending appeal before the Court of Appeals. It should have known that until the appeal is resolved by the appellate court, it would be premature to render judgment on petitioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings; that it would be presumptuous to assume that its own decision would be affirmed on appeal. One of the issues raised in the appeal is precisely whether the subject property is conjugal, or a paraphernal asset of the respondent. Thus, instead of resolving petitioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, the trial court should have denied it or held it in abeyance.

 

First, what is the general rule?

 

General Rule: A court cannot take judicial notice of the records of a different case even if it is pending before it, or even if the court has knowledge that it is one handling the case previously.

 

Exception: In the absence of objection, the court may treat it as read into the record of the present case.

 

The court may treat it as read into the records of the present case, just like what we reviewed earlier.

 

But as an exception to the exception: If that case that the court wants to take judicial notice of, is still pending appeal, the court should not take judicial notice of this. Because it has no right to presume that it will be upheld on appeal. After the appeal you can still file a Petition for Review (MTC to RTC; RTC to CA; CA to SC). It’s a long way to go if it’s initially cognizable by the MTC. But here it’s the CA to SC.

 

Section 3. Judicial notice, when hearing necessary. – During the pre-trial and the trial, the court, motu proprio or upon motion, shall hear the parties on the propriety of taking judicial notice of any matter.

 

Before judgment or on appeal, the court, motu proprio or upon motion, may take judicial notice of any matter and shall hear the parties thereon if such matter is decisive of a material issue in the case.

 

1. During Pre-Trial and Trial:
• The court, either on its own initiative (motu proprio) or upon a party's motion, is required to hear the parties on the propriety of taking judicial notice of any matter. This ensures that both parties have the opportunity to discuss and contest the court's intention to acknowledge a fact without formal evidence.
2. Before Judgment or on Appeal:
• The court may, again motu proprio or upon a party's motion, take judicial notice of any matter. However, if the matter is decisive of a material issue in the case, the court must conduct a hearing to allow the parties to be heard. This provision safeguards the parties' rights by ensuring that any fact recognized judicially, which could significantly impact the case's outcome, is subject to scrutiny and discussion.

Purpose of the Hearing:

The hearing is not intended for the presentation of new evidence but to provide the parties with a reasonable opportunity to:

• Present Information: Offer relevant information concerning the propriety of taking judicial notice.
• Discuss the Matter: Deliberate on the accuracy and relevance of the fact the court intends to acknowledge.

This process ensures transparency and fairness, allowing both parties to express their positions regarding the judicially noticed fact.

Example Scenario:

Consider a civil case where the court intends to take judicial notice of a recent legislative enactment that could affect the legal standards applicable to the case.

• During Trial: The court announces its intention to recognize the new law without formal evidence. A hearing is conducted where both parties can discuss the applicability and implications of this law on the current proceedings.
• Before Judgment: If, after the trial, the court identifies a fact (e.g., a Supreme Court ruling) that is decisive of a material issue, it may take judicial notice of this ruling. However, it must first hold a hearing to allow the parties to discuss the relevance and impact of this ruling on the case.

Section 3, Rule 129 ensures that when a court considers taking judicial notice of a fact, especially one that could significantly influence the case's outcome, the parties involved are given a fair opportunity to be heard. This provision upholds the principles of due process and fair play in judicial proceedings.

Example No. 1 In an action for a collection of sum of money, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant secured a loan from the plaintiff and there was a prior demand to pay and the defendant did not pay. The defendant admitted all the allegations in the complaint and simply prayed to the court for leniency. Take note, because of the admissions, no need for evidence. No need for trial, because judicial admission require no proof under

Rule 129 Section 4: Sec. 4 Judicial admissions. An admission, or or written, made by the party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof.

Example No. 2 In an action for collection of sum of money, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant secured a loan from the plaintiff and there was a prior demand to pay and the defendant did not pay. The defendant specifically denied all the allegations in the complaint. How will he make a specific denial?

Specific Denial Defendant specifically denies the allegations in the complaint insofar as it alleges that the defendant secured a loan from the plaintiff, that there was a prior demand to pay and that defendant has not paid yet. The truth of the matter is that the defendant did not secure a loan from the Plaintiff and, assuming that there was a loan, defendant has already paid it.

Question:

Do you notice something here? Do you notice something about the specific denial of the defendant? What do you notice from his defense?

 

Answer: The specific denial of the defendant is wholly inconsistent. You cannot deny a loan and at the same time allege that you have already paid it. Thus, the issue raised, even if there is a specific denial, is not genuine. At least one of them is clearly a sham issue. In that sham issue, what would be the effect? You can move for summary judgment, because that is a sham, either one of them is sham.

 

Example No. 3 In an action for collection of sum of money, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant secured a loan from the plaintiff and the defendant did not pay. The defendant specifically denied all the allegations in the complaint. How will he make a specific denial?

 

Specific Denial Defendant specifically denies the allegations in the complaint insofar as it alleges that the defendant secured a loan from the plaintiff, that there was a prior demand to pay and that defendant has not paid yet. The truth of the matter is that, while defendant did indeed secure a loan from the plaintiff, defendant has already paid it. The denial is very clear, I have a loan but I have already paid it. It is an Affirmative Defense, a defense of confession and avoidance. Oo, I admit that I have a debt. But, I am avoiding payment because I already paid it. That is affirmative defense under the rule on pleadings.

 

There are three (3) possible situations there:

 

Possibility No. 1 Defendant has already paid the plaintiff (payment) If defendant has already paid the plaintiff, he will plead the existence of an actionable document, a receipt (or that promissory note that has been returned). Thus, under Rule 8, Section 7, the substance of such document shall be set forth in the pleading, and the original or a copy thereof shall be attached to the pleading as an exhibit, which shall be deemed to be a part of the pleading, or said copy may with like effect be set forth in the pleading. (at least under the 1997 Rules). In this situation, there is a need to proceed to trial because reception of evidence (receipt) must be had. The plaintiff cannot move for judgment on the pleadings because there is a specific denial. In fact, the plaintiff has to file a reply under oath. Otherwise, the existence and due execution of the receipt would be deemed admitted (Rule 8, Section 8). In the same situation, the plaintiff cannot move for summary judgment because the existence of a receipt for payment tenders a genuine issue. The only time that that receipt will not tender a genuine issue is when, if that receipt is forged. It is Forgery, it was faked. In order for the plaintiff to properly argue that it is fake, and therefore it’s a sham issue, he needs to move affidavits, depositions or admissions. So, if there really is a genuine receipt, there is a need to go to trial to receive evidence as to their respective claims and defense of the parties.

 

Possibility No. 2 Defendant has really paid the plaintiff but has no proof (payment, no proof) Defendant really paid the plaintiff but he was never issued a receipt or maybe he lost his receipt. What will happen? Defendant will prove by testimony the circumstances that show that he has already has paid. What is the ultimate effect? Reception of evidence is still required. Hence, the plaintiff cannot move for summary judgment.

 

IMPORTANT: Summary Judgment and Judgment of the Pleadings, none of them are viable if there is still a requirement to present evidence. If there is anything that needs to be presented to the court, to determine a particular issue, if there are still evidence, we don’t accelerate the judgment.

 

Possibility No. 3 Defendant never really paid the plaintiff (no payment) In other words, he is inventing a defense. He is just kidding. He is lying. Even if he specifically denied the allegations in the complaint and attempted to make an issue, everything is a SHAM. This time, the plaintiff can move for summary judgment on the ground that the answer fails to raise a genuine issue. What will the plaintiff do? The plaintiff will move with supporting affidavits, depositions or admissions for a summary judgment in his favor. In other words, he will attach his proof that the defendant has never really paid. He will tell the Court that the defendant is lying. That’s the simplest I can explain, Rule 35 for you.

 

Take note, the defendant has the option to oppose the motion together with his affidavits, depositions or admissions. But if he never really paid the plaintiff, he would not have any proof. Take note also that if he never paid the plaintiff, what proof does he have?

 

Example No. 4 Plaintiff filed an action to collect a loan based on a promissory note, claiming that the defendant has not paid him yet. In his answer, defendant admitted that the plaintiff’s pleading states no cause of action as the promissory note is not yet due. That’s an affirmative defense, that’s allowed. Can the plaintiff move for summary judgment? Can the defendant, for that matter, move for summary judgment also?

 

Analysis Q: How will the court determine the maturity date of the promissory note?

 

A: By looking at the complaint. The promissory note and its maturity date are there. The attachments, the promissory note being an actionable document should be there.

 

Q: Would the court require reception of evidence to determine if the note is due or not?

 

A: No. Everything is stated in the pleadings.

 

Q: If the plaintiff moves for summary judgment, what will happen?

 

A: If the court determines that the promissory note is already due by examining the pleadings only, there is no more need for trial. The Court will simply order the defendant to pay. Anyway, the defendant already admitted the existence of the loan. In effect, the defendant did not raise a genuine issue. That is when sometimes the Judgment on the Pleadings can become confusing with Summary Judgment. What is the basis of the court? The pleadings, but it’s not summary judgment. Why? Because the defendant tried to make issue, he denied. Except that, it is not a genuine issue. Because when he says that the note is not yet mature but it is clear, you can see in the pleadings by pleading an actionable document that it’s already matured.

 

Q: Can the defendant move for summary judgment?

 

A: Yes. In effect, he is telling the court to simply look at the attached promissory note and see that the debt is not yet due. If the debt is not yet due, the court will dismiss the case on the ground of prematurity. It is still Premature, your cause of action is still not ripened. The complaint did not raise a genuine issue. In fact, there is still no cause of action yet because there is no violation.

 

I hope that clarifies Rule 34 in relation to Rule 35. The point that I just want to raise here, the point I want you to remember: You need to know the subtle differences between judgment on the pleadings and summary judgment (Rule 35). You need to remember that is a favorite in Bar Examinations. Not to mention the fact that Rule 34 and Rule 35 would be proper if the resolution of the issue, whether it is not a genuine issue or whether all admitted but would require still the presentation of evidence. Rule 34 and Rule 35 is not proper if it will still require a presentation of evidence. Why? I asked my student last year. Nobody got the question.