Cases (Admissions) Flashcards
FACTS: In this case, there are two (2) deed of extrajudicial settlement involving estate properties of Pedro Constantino, Sr., i.e., one in 1968 involving the 192 sqm and another in 1992 involving the 240 sqm. The separate Deeds came into being out of an identical intention of the signatories in both to exclude their co-heirs of their rightful share in the entire estate of Pedro Sr. Respondent, who are grandchildren of Pedro Sr. from Pedro Jr., filed a complaint seeking to annul the 1992 extrajudicial settlement involving the 240sqm lot on the ground that they, who are also heirs of Pedro Sr., were excluded thereto. On the other hand, Petitioners alleged that the respondents have no cause of action against them considering that the respondents’ already have their lawful share over the estate of Pedro Sr. by virtue of the 196 executed the 1968 Deed to partition the 192 sqm which is the share of their predecessor Pedro Jr., in Pedro Sr.’s Estate. RTC rendered a Decision finding both plaintiffs and defendants in pari delicto. On appeal, CA rule in favor of respondent and declared that the 1968 Deed covering the 192 sq m lot which actually belongs to Pedro Jr., hence, not part of the estate of Pedro Sr. Hence, heirs of Pedro Jr. (herein respondent), did not adjudicate the 192 sqm lot unto themselves to the exclusion of all the other heirs of Pedro Sr. Petitioners now assails the erroneous disregard by the CA of stipulations and admissions during the pre-trial conference
ISSUE: Whether or not admissions made during pre-trial are binding upon the parties.
answer is in the affirmative. Judicial admissions are legally binding on the party making the admissions. Pre-trial admission in civil cases is one of the instances of judicial admissions explicitly provided for under Section 7, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court, which mandates that the contents of the pre-trial order shall control the subsequent course of the action, thereby, defining and limiting the issues to be tried. A party who judicially admits a fact cannot later challenge the fact as judicial admissions are a waiver of proof; production of evidence is dispensed with. However, 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. However, respondents failed to refute the earlier admission/stipulation before and during the trial.
FACTS: Provincial Auditor conducted an audit of the cash and cash account of Conrado C. Doldol, the Municipa Treasurer of Urbiztondo, Pangasinan. The State Auditors discovered that Doldol had a shortage of P801,933.26. The State Auditors submitted their Report to the Provincial Auditor on their examinations showing his shortages. On the same day, Doldol wrote the Provincial Treasurer requesting that a re-audit be conducted on his cash and cash account, taking exception to the findings of the State Auditors. Instead of pursuing his request for a re-audit, Doldol opted to refund the missing funds. On September 15, 1995, he remitted P200,000.00 to the Acting Municipal Treasurer for which he was issued Official Receipt No. 436756. Doldol promised to pay the balance of his shortage, as follows: P200,000.00 on October 31, 1995, and P884,139.66 on or before November 30, 1995. However, he reneged on his promise. Two informations for malversation of public funds were then filed against Doldol in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Carlos City. Doldol was convicted. ISSUE: Whether or not, person convicted of malversation may assail his conviction when he had already partially paid the alleged shortage.
The said payment, particularly when taken in conjunction with appellant’s commitment to gradually pay the remainder of the missing funds, is a clear offer of compromise which must be treated as an implied admission of appellant’s guilt that he embezzled or converted the missing funds to his personal use.
Under section 28 rule 130 of the revised rules of evidence, in a criminal case, except those involving quasi offenses or those allowed by law to be compromised, an offer of compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt.
