|
Sps.
Jose N. Binarao and Preciosisima Binarao, Petitioners, -versus- Plus Builders,
Inc., Respondent. |
G.R. No. 154430 Present: pUNO, J., Chairperson, Sandoval-Gutierrez, AZCUNA, and GARCIA, JJ. Promulgated: |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
For our
resolution is the instant petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, assailing the Decision[1]
dated July 19, 2002, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 68921, entitled “Sps.
Jose N. Binarao and Preciosisima
Binarao v. Plus Builders, Inc.”
The facts are:
Bahayang Pag-asa,
Inc., and its sister corporation, Delfin Hermanos, Inc., are the owners and developers of Bahayang Pag-asa Subdivision in
On P327,491.95.
Petitioner Jose Binarao executed an Affidavit
of Undertaking on Equity whereby he agreed to pay respondent P96,791.95
in the following manner: P5,000.00 upon signing of the contract, and the
remaining P91,791.95 within 15 days thereafter.
However, petitioners failed to comply with their undertaking, prompting
respondent’s counsel to send them a demand letter.
On P20,000.00, leaving
a balance of P65,571.22 payable in three installments.
On
Consequently, respondent filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC),
Branch 25,
On
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is
hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff Plus Builders, Inc. and against
defendants Spouses Jose and Preciosisima Binarao ordering the latter jointly and severally to pay the
former the sum of P65,571.75, plus interest thereon at the stipulated
rate of 16% per annum computed from March 22, 1990, and a sum equivalent to 25%
of the amount due as liquidated damages until the same is fully paid, and the
sum equivalent to 25% of the unpaid balance as and by way of attorney’s fees
and the costs of suit.
SO ORDERED.
On appeal,
the Regional Trial Court, Branch 7, P65,571.22.
Petitioners
filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied by the RTC in an Order[4] dated
Petitioners then
filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for review.
On
The Court of Appeals held:
x x x Section 11, Rule 8 of the 1997 Rules of Court states:
Sec. 11. Allegations not
specifically denied deemed admitted. – Material averment in the complaint,
other than those as to the amount of unliquidated
damages, shall be deemed admitted when not specifically denied. Allegations of usury in a complaint to
recover usurious interest are deemed admitted if not denied under oath.
And, Section 10, Rule 8 of the 1997 Rules of
Court, as to the manner of making denials, provides:
Sec.
10. Specific denial. – A defendant must specify each material allegation
of fact the truth of which he does not admit and, whenever practicable, shall
set forth the substance of the matters upon which he relies to support his
denial. Where a defendant desires to
deny only a part of an averment, he shall specify so much of it as is true and
material and shall deny only the remainder.
Where a defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form
a belief as to the truth of a material averment made in the complaint, he shall
so state, and this shall have the effect of a denial.
In
the instant case, petitioners did not deny the allegations as stipulated in
paragraph 4 of the complaint of herein respondent corporation. In fact, petitioners even admitted the
allegations thereon. xxx
Petitioners, in their answer, specifically
paragraph 1 thereof, stated:
1. Defendants admit paragraphs 1 and 4 of
the complaint.
While it is true that
paragraph 7 of petitioners’ answer to the complaint qualified the fact that
they didn’t sign any payment plan, this qualification however neither denies
nor negates the other facts, as admitted, that were stated in paragraph 4 of
the complaint which actually states three facts: (1) that petitioner paid the
amount of P20,000.00 to respondent; (2) that petitioner still has a
balance of P65,571.22; and (3) that such unpaid balance is to be paid in
three (3) agreed payment plan. What is
denied by petitioners in paragraph 7 of their answer, if at all, is the fact
that there is no agreed payment plan.
But, as to the fact, to repeat, that petitioners still owe P65,571.22,
as balance after payment of P20,000.00, is admitted by petitioners as
this fact is never denied by them.
Such admission, being
made in the pleading, is considered as judicial admission. Being so, the allegations, statements, or
admissions contained in the pleading are conclusive as against the pleader, in
this case, petitioners. By admitting
therefore that petitioners still owe P65,571.22 to respondent
corporation, such is conclusive to petitioners.
Petitioners, on the other hand, may be relieved, as provided for in
Section 2, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court, of the effects of such admission in
their pleading if they can show that the admission had been made through
palpable mistake. However, petitioners
failed to show any palpable mistake on their part.
x x
x
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of
merit. The assailed Order dated
SO ORDERED.
Hence, this petition for review
raising this basic issue:
WHETHER
OR NOT PETITIONERS ADMITTED ABSOLUTELY IN THEIR ANSWER THEIR LIABILITY UNDER
THE PROPOSED PAYMENT PLAN DATED
Petitioners contend that they did not
agree to pay respondent P96,791.95 and that they did not admit in
their answer they are liable to respondent.
Respondent maintains that petitioners’
admission of liability in their answer binds them.
The petition lacks merit.
Sec. 4, Rule 129 of the Revised Rules of Court provides:
“Sec. 4. Judicial admissions. – An admission, verbal or written, made by a 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 no such admission was made.”
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.[5]
Here, petitioners
admitted in their answer the allegation in paragraph 4 of respondent’s complaint.
As correctly ruled by the Court of Appeals, petitioners admitted that: (a) they
paid the amount of P20,000.00; (b) they still have a balance of P65,571.72; and (c)
the unpaid balance is to be paid in three installments. It is well-settled
that judicial admissions cannot be contradicted by the admitter who is the
party himself[6] and binds
the person who makes the same, and absent any showing that this was made thru
palpable mistake (as in this case) , no amount of rationalization can offset it.[7]
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.
The assailed Decision dated
Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Associate Justice Chairperson |
|
|
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA Associate Justice |
|
CANCIO C. GARCIA Associate Justice |
|
I
attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
Chief Justice
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Salome
A. Montoya (retired) and Romeo J. Callejo, Sr. (now a
member of this Court), Rollo,
pp. 182-187.
[2] Annex “A”, Rollo, pp. 29-47.
[3] Annex “B,” id., pp. 35-47.
[4] Annex “D,” id., p. 48.
[5] Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium, Volume Two, Seventh Revised Edition at 650.
[6]
[7] Yuliongsiu v.
Philippine National Bank, No. L-19227,