VOL.

44, MARCH 29, 1972 163

Yu vs. Mapayo

No. L-29742. March 29, 1972.

VICENTE Yu, plaintiff-appellant, vs. EMILIO MAPAYO,

defendant-appellee.

Remedial Law; Judicial admissions, proof not required.·

Under section 2 of Rule 129 of the Rules of Court, „admissions made
by the parties in the pleadings, or in the course of the trial or other
proceedings do not require proof and cannot be contradicted unless
previously shown to have been made through palpable mistake.‰
Same; When plaintiff may insist defendant present his evidence
first.·Where the answer of the defendant admitted the obligation
stated in the complaint, although special defenses were pleaded, the
plaintiff has every right to insist that it was for the defendant to
come forward with evidence in support of his special defenses.

APPEAL from an order of the Court of First Instance of

Davao City, Branch II. Gonzales, J.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Lozano Law Office & Associates for plaintiff-
appellant.
Gregorio A. Palabrica for defendant-appellee.

REYES, J.B.L., J.:

Appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of

164

164 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Yu vs. Mapayo

Davao City, Branch II (Judge Alfredo I. Gonzalez

presiding), rendered in its Civil Case No. 4018, dismissing
plaintiff Ês action for lack of prosecution.
The case originally started in the City Court of Davao,
Branch II, where appellant therein had filed suit to recover
from defendant Emilio Mapayo the sum of P2,800,
representing the unpaid balance of the purchase price of a
Gray Marine Engine sold by the plaintiff to the defendant,
plus attorneyÊs fees. The answer admitted the transaction
and the balance due but contended that by reason of
hidden defects of the article sold, the defendant had been
forced to spend P2,800 for repairs and labor, wherefore
plaintiff had agreed to waive the balance due on the price
of the engine, and counterclaimed for damages and
attorneysÊ fees. The City Court, after trial, disallowed the
defenses and ordered the defendant to pay plaintiff
P2,500.00 and costs (Record on Appeal, pages 9-16).
Defendant Mapayo appealed to the Court of First
Instance, filing an answer therein that was a virtual
reproduction of his original defenses in the City Court.
When, after several continuances, the case was called for
hearing on 13 March 1968, the defendant, as well as his
counsel, failed to appear and the court scheduled the case
for hearing ex parte on the same day. The Court ordered
plaintiff to present his evidence, and from the unchallenged
stenographic notes quoted in appellantÊs brief, pages 11-14
(Transcript, pages 4-7), the following transpired:

„ATTY. LOZANO:
If your Honor please, before I present my witness I
should like to present the issue because all the allegations
of the complaint are admitted and I am going to specify
by the answer, your Honor. (Italics supplied)
COURT:
The issue is void on the hidden defect.
ATTY. LOZANO:
That is why, if your Honor please, the point if your
Honor please, is I do not have to prove that there is a
gasoline engine that was taken by the defendant from
the

165

VOL. 44, MARCH 29, 1972 165

 Yu vs. Mapayo

plaintiff for an agreed amount of P6,800.00 because the

allegation in paragraph 1, No. 2 and No. 3, is admitted
in the answer.
In other words, if your Honor please, the promissory
note in the amount of P2,800.00 ... (interrupted by
court).
COURT:
Wait a minute, are you going to present evidence or not?
ATTY. LOZANO;
Will you please give me a chance, if your Honor please,
because my purpose is, it will turn out that it will be the
defendant to present evidence to prove that there is
hidden defect. He admitted the allegation, he admitted
that there is a balance of P2,800.00; it is not paid by him
but at the same time he said that there is a hidden
defect.
In other words, if your Honor please, it should be the
defendant to present the evidence . . . (interrupted by
court).
COURT:
Are you going to present evidence, substantial, oral, or
not? Answer the question of the Court.
ATTY. LOZANO:
If your Honor please, on the complaint, on the allegation
of the complaint, all are admitted by the defendant ...
(interrupted by court.
COURT:
The attorney does not answer the question of the Court.
Answer the question, are you going to present evidence
OR NOT AND SUBMIT THE CASE ON THE
PLEADINGS. (Capitals supplied)
ATTY. LOZANO:
Would you please allow me, your Honor, because in the
answer of the defendant ... (interrupted by court)
COURT:
I do not need discussion; I want you to answer the
question of the Court.
 166

166 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Yu vs. Mapayo

ATTY. LOZANO:
I am not going to present my evidence yet because at
this moment I am submitting my evidence on the
pleading until after the defendant will present evidence
and I res erve my right to present rebuttal evidence.
(Italics supplied)
COURT:
Make it of record that the attorney refuses to present
evidence either oral or documentary when required by
the Court.
ATTY. LOZANO:
Motion for reconsideration, if your Honor please, that is
not what I said, if your Honor please, I manifested that
it should be the defendant to prove first, to present
evidence and we reserve our right to present rebuttal
evidence, if your Honor please. (Italics supplied).
COURT:
All right, denied.
Submit the case for the consideration of the Court.Ê ‰

The court then issued an order on the same day in the

following terms (Record on Appeal, page 24):

„ORDER

Make it of record that the attorney for the plaintiff refuses to

present evidence, either oral or documentary, when required by the
Court.
Submit the case for the consideration of the Court
SO ORDERED.‰

A motion for reconsideration having been filed by counsel

for plaintiff, it was denied by the court by an order of 21
March, and the case was dismissed for lack of prosecution
(Record on Appeal, pages 34-35), the trial judge reasoning
that·

„When the case is called for trial on 19 March 1968, defendantÊs

counsel asked again for another postponement of the trial on the
ground that defendant and his witnesses were not

167

VOL. 44, MARCH 29, 1972 167

Yu vs. Mapayo

able to come for lack of transportation, notwithstanding a stern

warning by the Court, per its order of 9 March 1968 that it, would
not entertain further motion for continuation of trial. Counsel for
the plaintiff vehemently objected to such motion and insisted in
presenting his evidence which the Court grants inspite of another
civil case and one miscellaneous case which were ready for hearing
at the same time.
„Court ordered the plaintiff to present his evidence. Plaintiff Ês
counsel refused to comply with said order. Instead of calling his
witnesses, he moved the Court to present them after the defendant
had presented their evidence. The court asked said counsel twice
whether he would present his evidence for the plaintiff, but said
counsel refused to do so and staked to his demand that he would
introduce his witnesses only in rebuttal. This is dictation to the
Court to disregard its lawful command and a violation of the order
of trial provided in the Rules of Court.
„This is an appealed case from the Municipal Court elevated to
this Court on 18 May 1963 and from that time several
postponement were granted at the instance of the parties which
cause delay and is detrimental to the interest of justice.
„IN VIEW WHEREOF, let this case be dismissed for failure to
prosecute on the part of counsel for the plaintiff without.
pronouncement as to costs.
„Finding defendantÊs counterclaim not meritorious, same is also
dismissed.
„SO ORDERED.‰

Further motions to reconsider having proved futile, the

plaintiff appealed.
We find for plaintiff-appellant. Since the answer
admitted defendantÊs obligation as stated in the complaint,
albeit special defenses were pleaded, plaintiff had every
right to insist that it was for defendant to come forward
with evidence in support of his special defenses. Section 2
of Revised Rule of Court 129 plainly supports appellant:

„Sec. 2. Judicial admissions.·Admissions made by the parties in

the pleadings, or in the course of the trial or other proceedings do
not require proof and can not be contradicted unless previously
shown to have been made through palpable mistake.‰

168

168 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Yu vs. Mapayo

While this appeal is not a complaint against the presiding

judge, We can not refrain from observing that the trial
judgeÊs despotic and outrageous insistence that plaintiff
should present proof in support of allegations that were not
denied but admitted by the adverse party was totally
unwarranted, and was made worse by the trial judgeÊs
continual interrupting of the explanations of counsel, in
violation of the rules of Judicial Ethics.
Defendant not having supported his special defenses,
the dismissal of the case was manifestly untenable and
contrary to law.
WHEREFORE, the appealed order of dismissal is hereby
revoked and set aside, and the court below is directed to
enter judgment in favor of plaintiff and against the
defendant for the sum of P2,800.00, plus attorneyÊs fees
which this Court considers just and reasonable (Civil Code,
Article 2208, paragraph 11). Costs against defendant-
appellee. Let a copy of this decision be furnished the
Honorable, the Secretary of Justice, for his information and
action.

Concepcion, C.J., Makalintal, Castro, Fernando,

Teehankee, Barredo, Villamor and Makasiar, JJ., concur.
Zaldivar, J., did not take part.

Order of dismissal revoked and set aside.

Notes.·The rule on judicial admission is founded on

estoppel (Sta. Ana v. Maliwat, 24 SCRA 1019). Where it is
claimed that a mistake has been committed by a party
making a judicial admission, the trial court may relieve the
party concerned from its consequences, but the discretion
should be exercised sparingly and cautiously (Trias v. Court
of First Instance of Cavite, 75 Phil. 757). Evidence aliunde
can be presented to show that the admission was made
through palpable mistake (Granada v. Philippine National
Bank, 18 SCRA 1).
 The probative value of a judicial admission must be
determined from the whole statement and others
intimately related or connected therewith as an integrated
unit (Id.)

169

VOL. 44, MARCH 29, 1972 169

De Guia vs. The Auditor General

Where a document is attached to a pleading as basis of an

action or defense, the failure to contest under oath its
genuineness and due execution constitutes an admission
thereof and the instrument consequently need not be
presented in evidence (Asia Banking Corporation v. Olsen,
48 Phil. 529).
Where a pleading is amended, it is erased from the
record as a judicial admission. It may, however, be taken as
an extra-judicial admission of the facts therein stated and
consequently requires that it be formally offered in
evidence (Bastida v. Menzi, 58 Phil. 188).

_______________

© Copyright 2017 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.