Camitan vs. Fidelity Investment Corporation G.R. No.

163684, April 16, 2008 Facts: The case arose from the Petition for the issuance of another duplicate copy of Certificate of Title No. T-(12110) T-4342 (TCT) filed by herein petitioners, together with Alipio Camitan, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Calamba, Laguna where Respondent Fidelity Investment Corporation (Fidelity) filed a Petition for annulment of judgment and cancellation of title before the CA. CA gave due course to the petition for annulment of judgment, and a preliminary conference was set, directing Fidelity to bring the owner's duplicate copy of the TCT. At the preliminary conference, Fidelity's counsel presented what was claimed to be the owner's duplicate copy of the TCT. Counsel for private respondents examined the certificate of title and admitted that it is the genuine owner's copy thereof. In order to expedite the proceedings, he agreed to have private respondents amplify their position in their memorandum. In their Memorandum, private respondents retracted their counsel's admission on the genuineness of the owner's duplicate copy of the TCT presented by Fidelity, citing honest mistake and negligence owing to his excitement and nervousness in appearing before the CA. They pointed to some allegedly irreconcilable discrepancies between the copy annexed to the petition and the exhibit presented by Fidelity during the preliminary conference. They also reiterated the issue on the validity of the purported deed of sale of the property in favor of Fidelity. In its Comment to the Memorandum, Fidelity countered that there were no discrepancies between the owner's duplicate copy it presented and the original copy on file with the Registry of Deeds of Calamba, Laguna. It argued that private respondents are bound by the judicial admission made by their counsel during the preliminary conference. It, likewise, objected to the inclusion of the issue on the validity of the deed of sale over the property. CA ruled in favor of Fidelity. Hence, this petition. Issue(s): Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred when it did not consider that the judicial admission of the counsel of the petitioner during the hearing in C.A.-G.R. SP. NO. 37291 was a palpable mistake?

Held: The Court of Appeals did not err in not considering the judicial admission of the counsel of the petitioner as a palpable mistake. The foregoing transcript of the preliminary conference indubitably shows that counsel for petitioners made a judicial admission and failed to refute that admission during the said proceedings despite the opportunity to do so. A judicial admission is an admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, which dispenses with the need for proof with respect to the matter or fact admitted. It may be contradicted only by a showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made.

Antone vs. Beronilla G.R. No. 183824, December 8, 2010 Facts: Petitioner Myrna P. Antone executed an Affidavit-Complaint for Bigamy against Leo R. Beronilla before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Pasay City. She alleged that her marriage with respondent in 1978 had not yet been legally dissolved when the latter contracted a second marriage with one Cecile Maguillo in 1991. Respondent moved to quash the Information on the ground that the facts charged do

not constitute an offense. He informed the court that his marriage with petitioner was
declared null and void by the Regional Trial Court, Biliran on 26 April 2007; that the decision became final and executory on 15 May 200[7]; and that such decree has already been registered with the Municipal Civil Registrar on 12 June 2007. He argued that since the marriage had been declared null and void from the beginning, there was actually no first marriage to speak of. Absent a first valid marriage, the facts alleged in the Information do not constitute the crime of bigamy. After a hearing on the motion, the court quashed the Information. Meanwhile, in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court filed before the Court of Appeals, herein petitioner alleged that the Pasay City trial court acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it dismissed the case of bigamy and denied her motion for reconsideration. Court of Appeals dismissed the petition.

Hence, this petition.

Issue(s):Whether or not the trial court acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion when it sustained respondents motion to quash on the basis of a fact contrary to those alleged in the information? Held: Supreme Court find that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion when, in so quashing the Information in Criminal Case of Bigamy, it considered an evidence introduced to prove a fact not alleged thereat disregarding the settled rules that a motion to quash is a hypothetical admission of the facts stated in the information; and that facts not alleged thereat may be appreciated only under exceptional circumstances, none of which is obtaining in the instant petition. Supreme Court define a motion to quash an Information as the mode by which an accused assails the validity of a criminal complaint or Information filed against him for insufficiency on its face in point of law, or for defects which are apparent in the face of the Information. This motion is a hypothetical admission of the facts alleged in the Information, for which reason, the court cannot consider allegations contrary to those appearing on the face of the information.