Dimaguila vs. Monteiro

A judicial admission made by a party in the course of proceedings is conclusive upon the admitter and cannot be contradicted unless shown to be a palpable mistake, and where the adverse party has relied on such admission to amend its complaint and reformulate its theory of the case, the admitter is estopped from denying the admission under Article 1431 of the Civil Code; moreover, a party who files a notice of consignation to exercise a right of legal redemption under Article 1623 effectively admits the existence, due execution, and validity of the deed of sale sought to be redeemed, and is thereafter estopped from questioning the admissibility or authenticity of such instrument.

Maria Ignacio Buenaseda owned a residential house and lot in Liliw, Laguna. Upon her death, the property passed to her two sons, Perfecto and Vitaliano Dimaguila. The brothers executed a Deed of Extrajudicial Partition dated October 5, 1945, dividing the property "into two and share and share alike." Perfecto was survived by three children: Esperanza, Leandro, and Pedro. Pedro, in turn, was survived by his own heirs. The southern portion of the property was associated with Perfecto's line, while the northern portion passed to Vitaliano's heirs (the Dimaguila petitioners). In 1992, Pedro's heirs sold his one-third share of the southern portion to the Spouses Monteiro. When the Spouses Monteiro attempted to take possession, they found the Dimaguilas occupying the area, leading to the filing of the original complaint for partition in 1993.

• The Property and Original Partition: The subject property, a residential house and lot located at Gat. Tayaw St., Liliw, Laguna with an area of 489 square meters covered by Tax Declaration No. 1453, originated from Maria Ignacio Buenaseda and passed to her sons Perfecto and Vitaliano Dimaguila. On October 5, 1945, the brothers executed a Deed of Extrajudicial Partition dividing the property "into two and share and share alike." Perfecto's line (southern half) eventually passed to his children Esperanza, Leandro, and Pedro, while Vitaliano's line (northern half) passed to the petitioners.

• The Sale to Spouses Monteiro: On September 29, 1992, Pedro's heirs executed a "Bilihan ng Lahat Naming Karapatan" (Deed of Sale of All Our Rights) conveying Pedro's one-third share of the southern half to Spouses Jose and Sonia Monteiro. The heirs of Esperanza and Leandro executed an Affidavit of Conformity and Waiver indicating their acquiescence to the sale.

• Original Complaint and Admission: On July 5, 1993, Spouses Monteiro filed a Complaint for Partition and Damages against the Dimaguilas and others, alleging co-ownership. In their Answer, the Dimaguilas specifically alleged that the property had been partitioned between Perfecto (southern half) and Vitaliano (northern half), that Perfecto became the "sole and exclusive owner" of the southern half, and that Vitaliano became the "sole owner" of the northern half, with the house divided accordingly.

• Amendment and Change of Theory: On January 2, 2001, Spouses Monteiro filed a Motion for Leave to Amend and/or Admit Amended Complaint, abandoning the claim for partition and instead seeking recovery of possession of Pedro's one-third share of the southern half. This amendment was predicated on the Dimaguilas' admission in their original answer that the property had already been partitioned. The Dimaguilas then filed an Answer to the Amended Complaint retracting their earlier admission, claiming it was a "palpable mistake" made by their former counsel who had rushed the filing without showing them a copy, and asserting that no actual partition into definite portions had occurred.

• Trial Evidence: Spouses Monteiro presented the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition, a cadastral map of Liliw (Cadm-484) dated August 6, 1976 showing the property divided into Lot 876 (northern) and Lot 877 (southern), and Municipal Assessor's records showing Buenaventura Dimaguila (heir of Vitaliano) claiming Lot 876 and Perfecto claiming Lot 877. They also presented the Bilihan and the Affidavit of Conformity and Waiver. The Dimaguilas presented Asuncion Dimaguila who testified regarding the alleged mistake of former counsel.

• Lower Court Rulings: The RTC ruled in favor of Spouses Monteiro, ordering the Dimaguilas to vacate the one-third portion of the southern half and pay rentals, attorney's fees, and litigation expenses. The RTC gave no credence to the claim of palpable mistake, noting the Dimaguilas maintained their partition theory from 1993 to 2001. The CA affirmed, holding that the petitioners were estopped from denying their admission and that the Bilihan was admissible despite the lack of documentary stamp tax (which could be remedied by affixing the stamp).

• Palpable Mistake: The Dimaguilas maintained that their original allegation regarding the partition into northern and southern portions was a mistake of their former counsel who filed the answer in haste without providing them copies, and that they never intended to partition the property to preserve the historical house thereon.

• Lack of Partition by All Co-owners: They argued that even assuming an admission was made, it was made only by some but not all co-owners, and partition requires the consent of all co-owners; allowing the admission would effectively permit partition by only some co-owners.

• Inadmissibility of Evidence: The petitioners contended that the cadastral map and list of claimants were inadmissible hearsay and violated the best evidence rule. They also argued that the Bilihan should not have been admitted for lack of documentary stamp tax under Section 201 of the NIRC, and that their lack of personality to assail the sale was distinct from the issue of the deed's admissibility.

• Counterclaims: They asserted that the lower courts erred in failing to rule on their counterclaims for demolition of improvements and payment of damages.

• Judicial Admission and Estoppel: The Spouses Monteiro countered that the Dimaguilas' admission in their original answer was a judicial admission under Rule 129, Section 4, which does not require proof and may only be contradicted by showing palpable mistake. They argued that the claim of mistake was self-serving and belatedly raised only after they relied on the admission to amend their complaint, thus estopping the Dimaguilas under Article 1431 of the Civil Code.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: They maintained that the partition was sufficiently established not only by the admission but also by the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition, the certified true copies of the cadastral map and assessor's records (which are exceptions to the best evidence and hearsay rules), and the Bilihan which was supported by an Affidavit of Conformity from the other heirs.

• Personality to Sue: They argued that the Dimaguilas, as heirs of Vitaliano who owned the northern half, lacked the personality to assail the sale of the southern half portion.

• Existence of Partition: Whether there was an actual partition of the subject property into northern and southern halves.

• Validity of Sale: Whether the one-third portion of the southern half was validly sold to the Spouses Monteiro.

• Admissibility of Deed: Whether the Bilihan was properly admitted into evidence despite the alleged lack of documentary stamp tax.

• Award of Damages: Whether the petitioners are liable for rentals, attorney's fees, and litigation expenses.

• Existence of Partition: An actual partition was conclusively established. The Dimaguilas' original answer contained a specific admission that the property was partitioned into southern and northern halves, with Perfecto owning the former and Vitaliano the latter. This judicial admission under Rule 129, Section 4 does not require proof and is binding unless shown to be a palpable mistake. The claim of palpable mistake was unsupported by evidence, self-serving, and raised belatedly (eight years after filing) only after the respondents relied on it to amend their complaint. Under Article 1431 of the Civil Code, the Dimaguilas are estopped from denying this admission. Even without the admission, preponderance of evidence established the partition through the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition, the certified cadastral map, and Municipal Assessor's records, which qualify as exceptions to the best evidence and hearsay rules as public records under Rule 130, Sections 3(d), 7, and 44.

• Validity of Sale and Admissibility: The Bilihan was valid and admissible. The Dimaguilas are estopped from questioning its admissibility because they filed a notice of consignation exercising their alleged right of redemption under Article 1623 of the Civil Code, which constitutes an admission of the deed's existence, due execution, and validity. Moreover, the copy submitted in 1995 bore a documentary stamp tax. In any event, the Dimaguilas lack the personality to assail the sale of the southern half as they are heirs of Vitaliano who inherited only the northern half; only the heirs of Pedro's siblings (who acquiesced to the sale) had standing to contest it.

• Award of Damages: The award of possession was proper. However, the award of rentals at ₱500 per month should be reckoned from January 2, 2001 (date of amended complaint seeking recovery of possession) rather than July 1993. Interest at 6% per annum shall be imposed on the total rent due from finality of the decision until fully paid. The awards of attorney's fees and litigation expenses were upheld as the respondents were compelled to litigate to protect their rights.

• Judicial Admissions (Rule 129, Section 4) — An admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case does not require proof and may be contradicted only by showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made. The burden of proving palpable mistake is strict and cannot be satisfied by bare, self-serving allegations raised belatedly after the adverse party has relied on the admission to reformulate its cause of action.

• Estoppel by Admission (Article 1431, Civil Code) — Through estoppel, an admission or representation is rendered conclusive upon the person making it and cannot be denied or disproved as against the person relying thereon. Where a party has amended its pleading and reformulated its theory of the case in reliance on an opponent's judicial admission, the admitter is estopped from retracting the admission.

• Exceptions to Best Evidence and Hearsay Rules for Public Records — Certified true copies of cadastral maps and assessor's records maintained by public officers are admissible under the exception to the best evidence rule (Rule 130, Section 3[d] and Section 7) and the hearsay rule (Rule 130, Section 44) as entries in official records made in the performance of official duty, constituting prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein.

• Estoppel to Deny Validity of Sale by Exercise of Right of Redemption — A party who files a notice of consignation to exercise a right of legal pre-emption or redemption under Article 1623 of the Civil Code effectively admits the existence, due execution, and validity of the deed of sale sought to be redeemed, and is thereafter estopped from questioning the instrument's admissibility or authenticity.

• Documentary Stamp Tax and Admissibility — While Section 201 of the NIRC provides that no document shall be admitted in evidence until the requisite documentary stamps are affixed, the court may require the proponent to affix the proper stamp; the lack of stamp does not invalidate the instrument itself but merely prevents its admission until the defect is cured.

• "Section 4 of Rule 129 of the Rules of Court provides that an admission made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case does not require proof, and may be contradicted only by showing that it was made through palpable mistake."

• "Article 1431 of the Civil Code provides that through estoppel, an admission is rendered conclusive upon the person making it, and cannot be denied or disproved as against the person relying thereon."

• "By filing the notice of consignation and tendering their payment for the redemption of the 1/3 portion of the southern-half of the property, the petitioners, in effect, admitted the existence, due execution and validity of the Bilihan."

• "The right of redemption of co-owners excludes that of adjoining owners."

• Gabucan v. Manta, 184 Phil. 588 (1980) — Cited by the CA regarding the procedure when a document lacks documentary stamp tax—the court should require the proponent to affix the requisite stamp.

• Del Rosario v. Hamoy, 235 Phil. 719 (1987) — Similarly cited regarding documentary stamp tax requirements and admissibility.

• Heirs of Vda. Dela Cruz v. Heirs of Fajardo, G.R. No. 184966, May 30, 2011 — Cited for the principle that findings of fact of the RTC affirmed by the CA are beyond the ambit of review under Rule 45.

• Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Spouses Roveca, 581 Phil. 188 (2008) — Cited for the definition of preponderance of evidence.

• Rosaroso v. Soria, G.R. No. 194846, June 19, 2013 — Cited for the principle that bare allegations unsubstantiated by evidence are not equivalent to proof.

• Nacar v. Gallery Frames, G.R. No. 189871, August 13, 2013 — Cited for the imposition of interest at 6% per annum on monetary awards from finality of decision until fully paid.

• Rule 129, Section 4, Rules of Court (Judicial Admissions) — Defines judicial admissions and the requirement of palpable mistake to contradict them.

• Rule 130, Section 3(d), Rules of Court (Best Evidence Rule Exception) — Provides that when the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer, secondary evidence is admissible.

• Rule 130, Section 7, Rules of Court (Proof of Public Records) — Allows contents of public records to be proved by certified copies.

• Rule 130, Section 44, Rules of Court (Entries in Official Records) — Declares that entries in official records made in the performance of duty are prima facie evidence of the facts stated.

• Article 1431, Civil Code (Estoppel) — Provides that admissions are conclusive against the admitter and cannot be disproved as against those relying thereon.

• Article 1623, Civil Code (Right of Legal Pre-emption or Redemption) — Governs the exercise of redemption rights by co-owners and the requirement of written notice.

• Section 201, National Internal Revenue Code (Documentary Stamp Tax) — Requires documentary stamps on documents before admission in evidence.

Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Diosdado M. Peralta, Roberto A. Abad, and Marvic Mario Victor F. Leonen.