You are on page 1of 2


Mendoza, J.


 Respondents Monteiro filed a complaint for partition and damages in the RTC alleging that
they are co-owners, with the petitioners Dimaguila, of a residential house and lot in Liliw,
 Respondents Monteiro anchor their claim on a deed of sale executed in their favor by the
heirs of Pedro Dimaguila (heir of Perfecto).
 Petitioners Dimaguila countered that there was no co-ownership to speak of and that the
property, then owned by Maria Ignacio Buenaseda, had long been partitioned equally
between her two sons, Perfecto (northern half) and Vitaliano Dimaguila (southern half). The
petitioners Dimaguila are heirs of Vitaliano.
 Respondents amended their complaint and abandoned the original claim for partition and
instead sought the recovery of possession of a portion of the subject property occupied by the

Respondents Monteiro: Adopted the Dimaguilas' admission in their original answer that the subject
property had already been partitioned between Perfecto (northern) and Vitaliano (southern).

Petitioners Dimaguilas: Admitted that the subject property was inherited by, and divided equally
but denied the admission in their original answer that it had been actually divided into southern and
northern portions. In effect, they argued the existence of a co-ownership, contrary to their original
position. Dimaguilas alleged that counsel made a mistake when he alleged in their original answer
that the property had already been partitioned.

RTC and CA: Found for Respondents Monteiro, ordered possession of the land be given to
respondents Monteiro.

Issues: W/N the admission in the original answer operate as proof against petitioners. YES.

 Spouses Monteiro, as plaintiffs in the original case, had the burden of proof to establish their
case by a preponderance of evidence. To prove their claim of partition, the respondent
spouses presented the following: deed of extrajudicial partition, cadastral land map, and
municipal’s assessor’s records.

 It appears that the subject property had already been partitioned into definite portions. The
petitioners themselves admitted to this very fact in their original answer. Section 418 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. Petitioners testified that such
admission was the palpable mistake of their counsel in his rush to file the answer, a copy of
which was not provided to them.

 The petitioner’s argument is self-serving, unsupported by any iota of evidence. This position
was adopted by the petitioners only almost eight (8) years after their original answer was
filed, in response to the amended complaint of the respondent spouses. The petitioners are
now estopped from denying or attempting to prove that there was no partition of the
Considering that an admission does not require proof, the admission of the petitioners would
actually be sufficient to prove the partition even without the documents presented by the
respondents Monteiro. If anything, the additional evidence they