You are on page 1of 3

SPS. JOSE & PRECIOSA BINARAO v.

PLUS Allegations of usury in a complaint to recover usurious


BUILDERS INC. interest are deemed admitted if not denied under oath.
June, 2006| Sandoval-Gutierrez J. |Civil Procedure| Sec. 10. Specific denial. A defendant must specify
Answer each material allegation of fact the truth of which he
Digester: Vizconde, Ronald P. does not admit and, whenever practicable, shall set
forth the substance of the matters upon which he relies
SUMMARY: Spouses Binarao, purchased a house and to support his denial. Where a defendant desires to
lot in Bahayang Pag-Asa Subdivision. They purchased deny only a part of an averment, he shall specify so
said house and lot thru Plus Builders Inc.. Spouses much of it as is true and material and shall deny only
executed an affidavit of undertaking whereby they the remainder. Where a defendant is without
agreed to pay respondent P96,791.95 in the following knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
manner: P5,000.00 upon signing of the contract, and to the truth of a material averment made in the
the remaining P91,791.95 within 15 days thereafter. complaint, he shall so state, and this shall have the
Petitioners paid respondent P20,000.00, leaving a effect of a denial.
balance of P65,571.22 payable in three installments.
However spouses failed to comply. Plus Builders filed a
Complaint for Sum of money. RTC-Manila ordered
spouses to pay balance. CA affirmed RTC. SC denied PROCEDURE:
Certiorari. The SC held that in the Answer filed by Cour Made Action Decision
spouses Binarao, they admitted paragraphs 1 and 4 of t by
the complaint filed by respondent. In the instant case, RTC- Plus Complaint for Sum of Binarao to pay
petitioners did not deny the allegations as stipulated in Manil Builde Money balance,
paragraph 4 of the complaint of herein respondent a rs interest, and
corporation. In fact, petitioners even admitted the damages
allegations thereon. Such admission, being made in the CA Binara Appeal Affirms RTC
pleading, is considered as judicial admission. Being so, o
the allegations, statements, or admissions contained in SC Binara Certiorari Petition Denied
the pleading are conclusive as against the pleader, in o
this case, petitioners. By admitting therefore that
petitioners still owe P65,571.22 to respondent FACTS:
corporation, such is conclusive to petitioners.
Plus Builders, Inc., herein respondent, is in charge
RULE: of the construction and sale of the houses in
Sec. 11. Allegations not specifically denied deemed Bahayang Pag-Asa Subdivision.
admitted. Material averment in the complaint, other On April 19, 1990, spouses Jose and Preciosisima N.
than those as to the amount of unliquidated damages,
Binarao, petitioners, purchased a house and lot in
shall be deemed admitted when not specifically denied.
Bahayang Pag-asa Subdivision for a total price of
P327,491.95. thereof, stated:
Petitioner Jose Binarao executed an Affidavit of 1. Defendants admit paragraphs 1 and 4 of the
Undertaking on Equity whereby he agreed to pay complaint.
respondent P96,791.95 in the following manner: Such admission, being made in the pleading, is
P5,000.00 upon signing of the contract, and the considered as judicial admission. Being so, the
remaining P91,791.95 within 15 days thereafter. allegations, statements, or admissions contained in
However, petitioners failed to comply with their the pleading are conclusive as against the pleader,
undertaking, prompting respondents counsel to in this case, petitioners. By admitting therefore that
send them a demand letter. petitioners still owe P65,571.22 to respondent
On July 6, 1998, petitioners paid respondent corporation, such is conclusive to petitioners.
P20,000.00, leaving a balance of P65,571.22 payable In the instant case, petitioners did not deny the
in three installments. allegations as stipulated in paragraph 4 of the
Consequently, respondent filed with the complaint of herein respondent corporation. In fact,
Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC), Branch 25, Manila a petitioners even admitted the allegations thereon.
complaint for a sum of money against petitioners.
On June 11, 2001, the MTC rendered a decision in RULING: Petition is DENIED.
favor of respondent ordering the latter to jointly and
severally to pay the former the sum of P65,571.75, ISSSUE: W/N petitioners admitted in their Answer
plus interest, and a sum equivalent to 25% of the their liability in the proposed plan? - YES
amount due as liquidated damages, and the sum
equivalent to 25% of the unpaid balance as and by The petition lacks merit.
way of attorneys fees and the costs of suit. Petitioners contend that they did not agree to pay
On appeal, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 7, respondent P96,791.95 and that they did not admit
Manila, rendered a Decision dated November 23, in their answer they are liable to respondent.
2001, affirming in toto the MTC Decision, holding Respondent maintains that petitioners admission of
that petitioners, in their answer, did not deny liability in their answer binds them.
respondents allegation in its complaint that they Sec. 4, Rule 129 of the Revised Rules of Court
have still an outstanding balance of P65,571.22. provides:
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but "Sec. 4. Judicial admissions. An admission, verbal
was denied by the RTC in an Order dated January or written, made by a party in the course of the
15, 2002. proceedings in the same case, does not require
Petitioners then filed with the Court of Appeals a proof. The admission may be contradicted only by
petition for review. showing that it was made through palpable mistake
On July 19, 2002, the Appellate Court rendered a or that no such admission was made."
Decision affirming in toto the RTC Decision. A party may make judicial admissions in (a) the
Petitioners, in their answer, specifically paragraph 1 pleadings, (b) during the trial, either by verbal or
written manifestations or stipulations, or (c) in other P65,571.72; and (c) the unpaid balance is to be paid
stages of the judicial proceeding. in three installments.
Here, petitioners admitted in their answer the It is well-settled that judicial admissions cannot be
allegation in paragraph 4 of respondents complaint. contradicted by the admitter who is the party
As correctly ruled by the Court of Appeals, himself and binds the person who makes the same,
petitioners admitted that: (a) they paid the amount and absent any showing that this was made thru
of P20,000.00; (b) they still have a balance of palpable mistake (as in this case), no amount of
rationalization can offset it.