This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2015-08-17 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| in their alleged scheme to haul scrap materials with the use of his trucks.[57] | |||||
|
2013-10-02 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| As contemplated in the aforementioned provision of the Rules of Court, the general rule regarding conclusiveness of judicial admission upon the party making it and the dispensation of proof admits of two exceptions: 1) when it is shown that the admission was made through palpable mistake, and 2) when it is shown that no such admission was in fact made. The latter exception allows one to contradict an admission by denying that he made such an admission.[42] | |||||
|
2008-09-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In addition, despite Urdaneta City's judicial admissions, the trial court is still given leeway to consider other evidence to be presented for said admissions may not necessarily prevail over documentary evidence,[43] e.g., the contracts assailed. A party's testimony in open court may also override admissions in the Answer.[44] | |||||
|
2007-08-08 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Thus, the general rule that a judicial admission is conclusive upon the party making it and does not require proof, admits of two exceptions, to wit: (1) when it is shown that such admission was made through palpable mistake, and (2) when it is shown that no such admission was in fact made. The latter exception allows one to contradict an admission by denying that he made such an admission.[17] | |||||
|
2007-03-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| As a general rule, facts alleged in a party's pleading are deemed admissions of that party and are binding upon him, but this is not an absolute and inflexible rule. An answer is a mere statement of fact which the party filing it expects to prove, but it is not evidence.[21] And in spite of the presence of judicial admissions in a party's pleading, the trial court is still given leeway to consider other evidence presented.[22] However, in the case at bar, as the Court of Appeals mentioned in its Decision, "[herein petitioners] had not adduced any other evidence to override the admission made in their [A]nswer that [petitioners Virgilio and Tadeo] actually signed the [Bilihan ng Lupa dated 17 August 1979] except that they were just misled as to the purpose of the document, x x x."[23] Virgilio's answers were unsure and quibbled. Hence, the general rule that the admissions made by a party in a pleading are binding and conclusive upon him applies in this case. | |||||
|
2003-10-17 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Petitioner argues that respondent Malinis did not deny her accusations and failed to answer the charges against him, indicating therefore the truth of her allegations.[35] Indeed, the general rule is that failure to deny allegations in the complaint results in admission thereof. [36] Such rule, however, is not absolute and admits of exceptions.[37] In Florentino Atillo III vs. Court of Appeals, Amancor, Inc. and Michell Lhuillier,[38] we held that in spite of the presence of judicial admissions in a party's pleading, the trial court is still given leeway to consider other evidence presented;[39] or, as in the present case, the absence of evidence for the petitioner to prove her claim. | |||||
|
2000-05-31 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| The issue raised is factual, which would bar us from reviewing the same in an appeal via certiorari.[10] The findings of fact of the Court of Appeals supported by substantial evidence are conclusive and binding on the parties and are not reviewable by this Court,[11] unless the case falls under any of the exceptions to the rule,[12] such as diverse factual findings of the lower courts[13] or the findings are entirely grounded on speculations.[14] Petitioner failed to prove that the case falls within the exceptions.[15] | |||||