LUCIDO v. CALUPITAN
After
Doctrine: Pleadings are to be treated as statements of real
issues in the cause and hence as admissions of the parties,
having weight according to the circumstances of each case.
On the same principle, where amended pleadings have been
filed, allegations in the original pleadings are held
admissible, but in such case the original pleadings can have
no effect unless formally offered in evidence.
FACTS: In this case Rosales and Zolaivar were execution
purchasers of the properties of Lucido. A public
document was executed and signed by all the parties
including the defendant Calupitan, wherein it was stated
that Rosales and Zolaivar, with the consent of Lucido, sold all
their rights and obligations pertaining to the property in
question to Calupitan. On the same day, Lucido and
Calupitan executed a document whereby the latter agreed
to furnish a loan in favor of the former. This was done in
order for Lucido to redeem the property from the execution
purchasers. The agreement likewise stated that
Calupitan would take possession of the major portion of the
land as his security and that Lucido would be given three
years to redeem the property. Thereafter, Lucido filed for
the recovery of the properties from Calupitan. The lower
court held that the properties should be returned to Lucido.
ISSUE: Whether the agreement between Lucido and
Calupitan was a sale with right to redeem? 􀂲 YES.
RATIO: The Supreme Court found that the agreement
between Lucido and Calupitan was one of sale with right to
redeem. To bolster this finding, the Supreme Court
mentioned the fact that Calupitan himself onsidered this
transaction as a sale with right to redeem as found in his
original answer to the complaint. This original answer was
introduced in evidence by the plaintiff Lucido over the
objection of Calupitan. Its admission was proper, especially
in view of the fact that it was signed by Calupitan himself,
who was at the time acting as his own attorney.
According to Jones on Evidence, as cited by the Supreme
Court, pleadings are to be treated as
statements of real issues in the cause and hence as
admissions of the parties, having weight according to the
circumstances of each case. On the same principle, where
amended pleadings have been filed, allegations in the
original pleadings are held admissible, but in such case the
original pleadings can have no effect unless formally offered
in evidence, as was done in this case.
TORRES v CA
Doctrine: If a complaint is amended, the original complaint
loses its character as a judicial admission, which would have
required no proof, and becomes merely an extrajudicial
admission, the admissibility of which, as evidence, requires
its formal offer.
FACTS:
Margarita Torres was married to Claro Santillan. They had
two children, Vicente and Antonina.
Claro died and Margarita became a widow. Antonina had six
children while Vicente had none. The children of Antonina
and Vicente are the respondents in this case because
Antonina died before the case was instituted.
Claro'sdeath, Margarita cohabited with Leon Arvisu Arbole.
Before getting married they had a child named Macaria
Torres, who is the petitioner in this case. Years after,
Margarita married Leon. This case is centered on the
ownership of Lot No. 551 in Tanza, Cavite. It was originally
leased by the government to Margarita Torres, who was its
actual occupant. Subsequently, the government sold it
to Margarita. Margarita then died. Afterwards, Leon Arbole
paid several installments of the purchase price. Before he
died, he sold all his rights and interest in one-half (1/2)
portion of the lot to Macaria Torres. Vicente Santillan then
executed an Affidavit claiming possession of the lot and a
transfer certificate of title was then issued in the name of
the legal heirs of argarita Torres. Vicente and the children
of Antonina then filed a complaint for Forcible Entry against
Macaria with the Justice of the Peace. The said court
decided against Macaria, so she appealed to the Court of
First Instance. Macaria then instituted an action for partition
of the lot. The Court of First Instance jointly tried the
ejectment and partition cases and gave Macaria one-third
(1/3) potion of the lot and the respondents two-thirds (2/3).
Macaria asked for a reconsideration which was granted
based on a finding that Macaria was a legitimated child of
Arbole and Margarita Torres. Her share in the property was
increased to two-thirds of the lot.
The private respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals
which found that Macaria was not a legitimated child and
reduced her share to half of the lot. Macaria is now claiming
she and Vicente and Antonina are brothers and sisters and
they are the legal heirs and nearest of relatives of
Maragarita based on a statement found in the private
respondents' original complaint for forcible entry. It read:
"That theplaintiffs are the legal heirs and nearest of kin of
Margarita Torres, who died at Tanza, Cavite, on December
20, 1931." When the private respondents amended their
complaint, this part was deleted.
ISSUE: Whether the statement in the original complaint,
after being deleted in the amended complaint, may still be
treated as a judicial admission? 􀂲 NO.
RATIO: When a complaint is amended, the Amended
Complaint takes the place of the original. The latter is
regarded as abandoned and ceases to perform any further
function as a pleading. The original complaint no longer
forms part of the record. If a party wishes to utilize the
original complaint, the said party should offer it in evidence.
Having been amended, the original complaint lost its
character as a judicial admission, which would have required
no proof, and became merely an extrajudicial admission, the
admissibility of which, as evidence, required its formal offer.
Contrary to Torres' submission, therefore there can be no
estoppel by extrajudicial admission made in the original
complaint, for failure to offer it in
evidence.
Teehankee Dissent: The respondents admission did not cease to be
a judicial admission because respondents subsequently deleted the
same in their amended complaint. The original complaint, although
replaced by an amended complaint, does not cease to be a part of
the judicial record, not having been expunged therefrom.