Evidence Pre-Midterms
Judicial Admission balance but during the trial they presented evidence that
An admission which is made in the course of the
proceedings in the same case – may be admissible in the
same case or offered as an extra judicial admission in
another case.
Example:
An admission made in a BP 22 case may be offered as an
extra judicial admission in the related estafa case.
GR: Judicial admission can be offered as an extrajudicial
admission in another case.
EXC: An admission made in reply to a request for
admission under Rule 26 of 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
as amended. Under Sec 6 Rule 26, it is explicitly provided
that an admission made can only be made for the
purposes of the very case and cannot be admitted in
evidence as so far as other cases are concerned.
Effect of Judicial Admission
It establishes a fact which is conclusive upon the admitter.
Even if the admitter offers an evidence during trial
different from or inconsistent from the judicial admission
made, the court is not supposed to consider it even if the
adverse party against whom it is offered does not object
to its admission. An obligation is imposed upon the court
to disregard any evidence offered which is contradictory
or inconsistent with the judicial made by the party. It
cannot be controverted.
Santos vs Lumbao
This an action to demand partition. One of the
co-owners sold his specific and undivided share in the
property to the buyer. Since the property was not yet
portioned at the time of the sale the buyer was not able
to secure title over the specific portion subject of the sale
until the seller co-owner died.
The buyer now approached the heirs of the co-
owner seller to get the title of the mother so that they can
affect a partition to secure a title but the heirs refused
which prompted the buyer to go to court to compel the
delivery of title.
The heirs in their answer admitted that the
property was sold the by their predecessor and as a matter
of fact 2 of the heirs signed as witnesses in the deed of
absolute sale . However, during trial the heirs denied the
existence of the sale.
Ruling:
SC held that any evidence presented by the
defendant to contradict the admissions made in their
pleadings cannot be considered by the court.
Spouses Binarao vs Plus Builders
There is this subdivision house and lot which the
spouses bought by installment but later on failed to pay
the remaining installment. The subdivision owner was
constrained to file a case for the collection remaining
balance of the purchase price. Spouses in their answer
admitted that they owed the plaintiff the remaining
University of San Carlos
EH 401 | 2019-2020
purportedly shows that there was already full payment.
Ruling:
SC rejected the evidence citing the principle of
judicial admission, that a party after making a judicial
admission is prohibited from contradicting disowning
disclaiming the judicial admission made.
Elayda vs CA
The plaintiff sued the defendant for a sum of money
claiming that the defendant owed her 86k. During trial,
the defendant admitted that they owed the plaintiff but
interposed the defense of payment. In fact, they were able
to prove that they made overpayments of their loan
obligation as allege in the complaint.
Realizing this Elayda presented evidence
consisting of a statement of her accountant to show that
the actual obligation was not only 86k but more than what
was alleged in the complaint.
Ruling:
The SC held that such cannot be done. Elayda
already made a judicial admission in the complaint that
the loan obligation was only 86k therefore she cannot be
allowed to present evidence to contradict the admission
made in the pleading, the judicial admission is conclusive
to the admitter any evidence made contrary to or
inconsistent to the earlier judicial admission made should
not be considered by the court whether or not that
evidence is objected to or not by the adverse party.
Amendment to Conform to Evidence (Rule 10, Sec. 5) vs
Judicial Admission (Rule 129, Sec. 4)
In judicial admission, if there is a conflict between the
allegation in the pleading that would serve as a judicial
admission and evidence presented during the trial, judicial
admission prefers allegation over evidence. The parties
are prohibited from presenting evidence contrary to what
is alleged in the pleading.
The rule on amendment to conform to evidence is the
opposite. When there is a conflict between allegations in
the pleading and evidence actually offered during the trial,
amendment to conform to evidence allows the
amendment of the pleading as if the fact sought to be
established by the evidence during the trial is duly raised
in the pleading. Evidence prevails over allegation in the
pleading, mere allegation is not evidence.
Under the existing rule, Sec. 5 Rule 10 provides that if an
issue not otherwise raised in the pleadings is tried
expressly or impliedly by the parties the pleading may be
amended to conform to evidence presented. If the
evidence is objected to by the adverse party the court may
nonetheless allow the amendment if doing so would
subserve the ends of justice.
In any case whether objected to or not, amendments may
be allowed to conform to the evidence presented so that
if Rule 10, Sec. 5 were to be applied in the case of Elayda
v. CA, he would be allowed to present evidence that the
amount of the obligation is more that the allege amount
and the pleading would be deemed amended to conform
to the evidence. But Elayda v CA was decided in the light
1
Evidence Pre-Midterms
of the rule on judicial admission, which is why Elayda was
not allowed to present evidence.
Azolla Farms vs CA
The farm obtained a loan from a bank for the
purpose of financing their project. The bank approved the
loan and released the proceed by tranches. Eventually,
bank learned that the farm diverted the proceeds of the
loan from the intended purpose to another. The bank then
refused to release the remaining tranches which resulted
to the collapse of the project. The Farm sued the bank for
damage alleging that the bank acted in bad faith in not
releasing the tranches for the approved obligation.
During the trial, it was established that the
transaction entered into was invalid for it was not
authorized by the bank. Taking cue from the admission
that the transaction was invalid, Farm filed a motion to
allow amendment to conform to evidence for in the
complaint they admitted that the transaction was valid and
they only prayed for recovery of damage for the farm
theorized that the bank acted in bad faith in refusing to
release the remaining portion of the loan.
Ruling:
SC sustained the arguments of the Farm based
on Rule 10 Sec 5 that when an issue not otherwise raised
the pleading is tried by the parties expressly or impliedly
the complaint/ pleading may be amended to conform to
the evidence. Here, the issue of the invalidity of the
transaction was not raised in the pleading because the
premise of the complaint was that the transaction was
valid but impliedly, this issue was tried by the parties
during the trial. This gives way to application of sec 5 of
rule 10 allowing the amendment of the complaint/pleading
to conform to the evidence.
Atty. T: Before the amendment there is a conflict between
Amendment to Conform to Evidence and the rule on
judicial Admission regarding its conclusive effect. But
under the proposed amendment, Sec 5 of Rule 10 when
an issue not otherwise raised in pleading is tried by the
parties expressly or impliedly the pleading shall be
deemed amended to conform to the evidence. There is
now no need to physically amend the pleading because
the amendment takes place as a matter of law.
Difference between the Existing Rules and the
Proposed Rules as to Rule 10, Sec. 5
Existing Rules Proposed Rules
Amendments maybe Amendment to conform
allowed even if objected to evidence is allowed
by the adverse party, if only if an issue not
the issue is tried otherwise raised in the
expressly or impliedly pleading is tried by the
provided that the interest parties expressly or
of justice would be sub impliedly. Express if both
served and no substantial parties consent to the
damage to the other trial of the new issue.
would be caused to the Implied if there is no
adverse party objection raised by either
party.
Judicial Admission vs Extrajudicial Admission
University of San Carlos
EH 401 | 2019-2020
Judicial Admission Extrajudicial Admission
An admission which is Admission which is made
made in the course of outside of the proceedings
the proceedings in the of the case or is made the
main case course of a proceeding of
a case but offered in
another case.
No need of formal offer, Needs to be formally
the admission takes the offered
place of evidence
Forms part of the No judicial notice
records of the case thus
court takes judicial
notice
Illustration:
Suppose Ms. Camposano is a victim of acts of
lasciviousness and accuses Mr. Manit as the party
responsible. During the pendency of the trial, Mr. Manit
had a coffee session with Mr. Dacalos and confided to him
that he indeed committed acts of lasciviousness against
Ms. Camposano – an admission made by a party outside
the proceedings of the case hence extrajudicial.
Suppose Mr. Dacalos happens to be the friend of the
prosecutor and latter wants to make use of the
extrajudicial admission in court to prove the guilt of Mr. M,
so how should it be offered in court?
Proper way to offer an extrajudicial admission
Present Mr. Dacalos and let him testify as to what
happened during the conversation – he would now
confirm to the court that in the course of the meeting, Mr.
Manit confessed that he did in fact committed acts of
lasciviousness. The testimony, though considered as
hearsay not being based on personal knowledge, but by
express provision of the rules it is admissible in nature.
Based on Rule 130 Sec. 32, an act, declaration made by a
party which is relevant to the issue in the case may be
received in evidence against such party.
Illustration:
A suspect was arrested and during the course of the
investigation he made an extrajudicial admission
compliant with the Miranda warnings. Eventually during
trial, suspect disowned the extrajudicial confession upon
the advice of the lawyer. What to do?
Present the lawyer who assisted him in the taking of the
extrajudicial confession or the investigation prosecutor or
anybody present in the taking of the extrajudicial
confession.
Legal Presumptions
It is an assumption of fact resulting from a rule of law
which requires such fact to be assumed from another fact
or group of facts found or otherwise established in the
action.
These are inferences derived from other established facts.
IMPORTANT: It does not altogether dispense the
requirement of evidence, by its very nature it presupposes
that there are other facts and that these other facts are
2
Evidence Pre-Midterms
established by evidence, and only when such facts are
established, that the legal presumption can arise.
Illustration:
A child conceived or born during the existence of valid
marriage is legitimate, the status of legitimacy is being
presumed by law, such presumption arises from the fact
of marriage and conception and birth during the existence
of valid marriage. For a party to invoke such presumption
he must establish by evidence the fact that the child was
conceived or born during the existence of valid marriage.
Without proof, the presumption cannot arise.
A presumption cannot possibly arise from another
presumption – it can only arise from establish
facts.
Presumption of Legitimacy cannot arise from the
presumption of a valid marriage
Angeles vs Manlaya
This is an action involving settlement of estate
left by the deceased between the wife and the suppose
legitimate daughter. The daughter asked the court that
she be appointed as the administrator of the estate of her
deceased father. This was protested by the wife. The
daughter, in claiming that she was a legitimate child, relied
on the presumption that a child born during the existence
of a valid marriage is presumed to be legitimate. And
taking cue from this presumption of law, she did not deem
it necessary to prove that she is legitimate. However, she
failed to prove the fact of marriage between her mother
and the deceased. She only relied on the fact that her
mother and the deceased during their lifetime were
cohabiting and holding themselves to the public as
husband and wife, as there is also that presumption in law
that a man and a woman who hold themselves out as
husband and wife, are legally married.
Ruling:
SC held that it is not enough to invoke the
presumption of legitimacy. Such presumption can only
arise if the fact of marriage is duly established which
unfortunately was not complied with here. Presumption
must proceed from established facts and not on the
basis of another presumption.
Kinds of Legal Presumption
1. Conclusive Presumption - Presumption that
does not allow contrary evidence. Such that if it
applies it does not accept any controverting
evidence the fact presumed is conclusively
presumed. No amount of contrary evidence is
allowed.
a. Estoppel by Deed
b. Estoppel by a Tenant-Landlord
relationship
2. Disputable Presumption - enough to
support a conclusion if allowed to stand
unrebutted. It may be contradicted by contrary
evidence
a. Ordinary course of nature and
ordinary habits of life
University of San Carlos
EH 401 | 2019-2020
b. A person takes ordinary care of his
concerns
c. A person caught in the possession of
a thing in the doing of a recent
wrongful act is the taker and the doer
of the wrong act
d. A person in possession of a property
in the concept of an owner is
presumed to be the owner and may
not be required to prove his title
e. Evidence willfully suppressed would
be adverse if produced
f. Presumptions relating to death
Conclusive Presumption
Estoppel by Deed
When a party deliberately led another to believe that a
certain fact is true and to act on the basis of that belief
that party cannot in any litigation arising from that act or
declaration be permitted to falsify it. This is based on
public policy to promote fair dealings and prevent duplicity
in human relations.
Tijam vs Sibonghanoy
The rule is that jurisdiction can be raised at any time, even
for the first time on appeal. An exception is jurisdiction
by estoppel -- this principle provides that a party who
seeks affirmative relief from the court cannot, when he
fails to obtain such relief, be allowed to impugn the
jurisdiction of the court after actively participating in the
proceeding. By asking affirmative relief, that party
impliedly recognized the jurisdiction of the court and just
because he obtains an adverse decision, he cannot be
permitted to repudiate such implied recognition of
jurisdiction.
Estoppel by Tenant-Landlord Relationship
Tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord or
better right of possession at the time of commencement
of tenant landlord relationship.
When a tenant leases a property from a landlord, the
tenant in effect recognized that either the landlord is the
owner of the property subject of the lease or the landlord
has better right to lease the property to the tenant. After
the commencement of the relationship, the tenant cannot
be allowed to impugn title of the landlord and this time
refuse to honor his obligation under the lease contract
having entered into a lease contract with the owner the
tenant cannot just say that he refuses to pay the monthly
rental because he belatedly realized that landlord was not
the owner such is not allowed. It’s a conclusive
presumption that a tenant recognizes the title of his
landlord.
Datalift Movers vs Belgravaia
Phil National Railways (PNR) entered into a lease contract
with Sampaguita. Sampaguita, instead of using the leased
property, subleased it to its sister company, Belgravia. The
latter in turn subleased the premises to Datalift Movers.
The contract continued for several years, until such time
that Belgravia and Datalift had a disagreement as to the
amount of rentals. Datalift refused to pay rentals which
3
Evidence Pre-Midterms
prompted Belgravia to file an ejectment suit against the
Datalift. Datalift argued however that Belgravia has no
cause of action or legal personality being neither the
owner nor the lessee of the property of PNR.
Ruling:
SC held that Datalift after having entered into a
sublease agreement with Belgravia, cannot be permitted
to deny the better right of possession of the lessor
Belgravia, as this is conclusively presumed by law.
Ermitanio vs Paglas
A contract of lease was executed between the
landlord and the tenant. During the existence of the lease,
the landlord obtained a loan from a third-party creditor
and mortgaged the leased property as guaranty. The
landlord failed to pay the loan and subsequently, the
property was foreclosed in favor of the creditor, who in
turn sold the same to the tenant. The tenant now became
the new owner of the property.
The original owner filed a suit against the
creditor alleging that the property was illegally foreclosed.
In the meantime, the original owner is still demanding
payment of rentals from the tenant. The defense
interposed by the tenant in refusing to pay the rental was
that, after the commencement of the lease, the title of the
lessor was conveyed to a third party and that third party
in turn sold it to him (tenant). Thus, being the new owner,
he cannot be compelled to pay. The original owner
however, argued that the tenant is estopped from denying
his (original owner) title.
Ruling:
SC ruled that the tenant is estopped from
denying the title of the landlord is applicable only insofar
as the title of the landlord at the time of the
commencement of the relationship. But where such title
was conveyed after the commencement of the lease
contract to another, the rule does not apply and hence the
tenant can now deny the title of the landlord.
Disputable Presumptions
Ordinary course of nature and in the ordinary habits of
life
Normalcy is assumed.
Atienza vs Board of Medicine
On top of the ruling of the court that there is no
need to prove the anatomical positions of kidneys,
applying the principle of judicial notice, it also held that
there is no need to prove the anatomical positions of said
kidneys because of the presumption in law that things
happen in accordance with the ordinary course of nature
and ordinary habits of life. It is normal that the left kidney
is located in the left, and the right kidney to the right.
Everyone is presumed to take care of their own ordinary
concern
The presumption in law is that we act carefully and
diligently – stupidity is not presumed, consistent with
nature of self-preservation.
University of San Carlos
EH 401 | 2019-2020
Reyes VS BPI
Reyes is an existing depositor of a bank. Enticed
by the advertisement given by the bank of giving
incentives to new opened accounts, Jesusa Reyes with her
daughter went to the bank to open a new ATM account.
In the bank, she said that she was willing to
open an account with an initial deposit of P200,000. Reyes
claims that she had with her P100,000 cash and intended
to withdraw another P100,000 from her existing account.
It turned out a few days after that Reyes realized that the
amount reflected in her new account is only P100,000. She
argued that it should be P200,000. The Bank claims,
however, that Reyes first intended to withdraw P200,000
from her old account as evidenced by a withdrawal slip
signed by Reyes showing P200,000. But her account was
insufficient thus, she only withdrew 100,000, which
amount she transferred to her new account. The Bank
alleges that there was no actual cash involved in the
transaction.
Ruling:
SC said she only deposited P100,000. SC said
that when Reyes signed the withdrawal slip, it was
impossible for her not to notice the figure of P200,000 as
she signed it beside the figure.
From this premise, if it were the intention of
Reyes to only withdraw P100,000 from her existing
account because she claimed that she had with her at the
time, the other P100,000 in cash, then why is it that she
did not call the attention of the teller that P200,000 was
not the amount she intended to withdraw? But Reyes’ only
excuse was that she signed it without bothering to
scrutinize the document. The court applied the
presumption that everyone is presumed to take care of
her ordinary concerns. A person who transacts with a bank
is expected to scrutinize every detail on the document that
she is signing. It was impossible for her not to notice the
P200,000, and if she indeed noticed the P200,000, the fact
that she did not complain reasonably establishes that the
intention of Reyes was really to withdraw P200,000. It just
so happened that the existing account could not
accommodate the P200,000 amount reflected in the
withdrawal slip. Thus, her failure to complain despite
presumed knowledge that she knew the P200,000 figure
on the withdrawal slip was taken against her.
One in possession of a thing from a recent doing of a
wrongful act is presumed to be the taker and presumed
to be the doer of the wrong act.
This is the presumption of being a thief. So if someone is
caught in possession of an item which was subject of a
recent robbery or theft, he is presumed to be the one who
took it.
People vs Newman
A taxi driver was robbed and subsequently, his personal
effects were recovered from the accused including the
driver’s license which he superimposed by his photograph.
SC convicted the accused not just for robbery but also for
murder because he failed to explain how he possessed the
items.
4
Evidence Pre-Midterms
People vs Acejo
This involves a case of robbery with murder.
Subsequently, some items belonging to the victim were
found to be in the possession of the accused.
SC convicted the accused based on this
presumption because the accused was not able to explain
how he came to the possession of the stolen items.
A person in possession of a property in the concept of an
owner is presumed to be the owner and may not be
required to prove his title
Any person in possession of a thing may not be
dispossessed of the property. A person who claims a
contrary right, is not authorized to take the law into his
own hands and forcibly take that property away from the
present possessor. Remedy is to file an action to recover
the property in court.
So how do you now reconcile this with the
presumption of being a thief?
Illustration:
You happen to buy a carnapped vehicle from a merchant’s
store. The store sells secondhand cars. What if unknown
to you it was a stolen carnapped vehicle? And you were
joyriding and mobile patrol personnel pulled you over
saying you’re driving a carnapped hot car, can the police
officer take that vehicle from you? Can he dispossess you
of your possession of the car? On one hand you are
presumed to be the carnapper and the other you are
presumed to be the owner.
Atty. T: Some would say presumption of ownership
prevails because the purpose of this presumption is to
favor the interest of an owner. Others would say the
presumption of being a thief should prevail since this is
based on public policy to make prosecution easier.
Which of these two presumptions prevail over the
other?
Edu v. Gomez
Edu, a buyer of a second hand vehicle, was
flagged down by the police. The vehicle was seized from
her on the ground that it was a hot car, stolen from a
military officer. The buyer, possessor of the allegedly
stolen vehicle, went to court and filed an action for
replevin (recovery of personal property). Was it being
proper for the police to seize the vehicle from Edu?
Ruling:
SC held that a person in possession of a thing in
the concept of an owner is presumed to be the owner and
she cannot be compelled to prove her title. It is incumbent
upon the other party to prove otherwise and go to court.
In the meantime, that person who possesses the thing
should not be disturbed in her possession. She is not even
required to go to court to apply for replevin as the
presumption is in her favor.
The presumption of ownership is favored over the
presumption of being a thief. This is to maintain peace and
not merely to protect a private right. Imagine if any party
who claims to be the owner of a property in possession of
University of San Carlos
EH 401 | 2019-2020
another and takes the law into his own hands to recover
possession, there would be chaos.
That’s why an owner of a real property and squatters are
occupying your property, you are not allowed to take the
law into your own hands and execute all the squatters.
Your remedy under the law is to file an action for
ejectment. This illustrates the principle that a present
possessor no matter how illegal the possession may be is
entitled to be respected in his present possession.
Evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if
produced
When a party is in possession of a piece of evidence which
a party would normally present if it is favorable to himself
would refuse or fail to produce that piece of evidence
without any explicable reason. This unexplained refusal or
failure to present evidence gives rise to the presumption
that that evidence is adverse to the party.
Illustration:
If you are sued for a collection of sum of money and your
defense is you already paid it with receipts to prove
payment but when the opportunity comes when it’s your
turn to present evidence you fail or refuse to present that
receipt without justifiable reason. That refusal or failure to
present that vital piece of evidence would give rise to the
presumption that either no such receipt exists or the
receipt is adverse. That failure or refusal amounts to willful
suppression of evidence.
IMPORTANT: For this presumption to arise, the failure or
refusal to present must be willful. It must be done without
justifiable reason or it was done maliciously. It must not
be done in the exercise of a right because that failure or
refusal to present would not amount to willful suppression.
Moreover, the evidence suppressed must not be equally
available to the other party.
This presumption also will not apply when the evidence is
merely corroborative or cumulative. If it is corroborative
or cumulative meaning it is only additional evidence and
there are other evidence that are more important than the
evidence allegedly suppressed, this presumption does not
apply. Because every party has the prerogative to
choose evidence to present. It is only when the
evidence is vital that it is indispensable for that party to
present that evidence but he never did, that the
presumption of the adverse nature of that evidence could
effectively arise.
Blue Cross Health v. Olivares
An insurance contract exists between the insurer and
patient. The patient was hospitalized and incurred
expenses. Subsequently, the patient filed a claim with the
insurer for the insurance proceeds but the latter refused
to pay because allegedly, the reason for the hospitalization
was a pre-existing illness, an excepted peril. In support
of the claim of the insurer, it would have wanted to
present the medical records of the patient that would
show that the ailment was a pre–existing one. But upon
the direct and express instruction of the patient, the
doctor however refused to make the medical record
5
Evidence Pre-Midterms EH 401 | 2019-2020

available to the insurer. During the trial, the insurer
invoked this presumption arguing that had the medical
records been made available, it would have shown that
the illness for which the client was hospitalized is a pre-
existing disease, and thus an excepted peril.
Ruling:
SC disagreed with the insurer. For the disputable
presumption to apply, the non-presentation of the
evidence must be willful. Here, the willful character is
negated by the fact that the non-presentation was
pursuant to the patient’s exercise of a right – privileged
communication between a patient and the physician . No
inference can thus be drawn from the non-disclosure of
the medical records.
This presumption does not apply when the
evidence supposedly suppressed is equally available to the
adverse party. If that piece of evidence is equally available
at the disposal of both parties, no presumption shall arise.
Because if the party believes that the evidence is adverse
to the adverse party then he can just present it himself
rather than invoke the presumption that it is adverse to
the other party.
People v. Padiernos
This involves the killing by the wife of her husband, who
was an abusive policeman. During the course of the
investigation, it was established that the police obtained
an affidavit of a particular witness who witnessed the
killing. During trial, the prosecution did not present said
affidavit and neither was the witness presented. The
accused argued that the willful suppression of the affidavit
or the non-presentation of the witness raises the
disputable presumption that the witness is adverse to the
prosecution.
EXC: Absence of 4 years – under extraordinary
circumstances:
a. On board a vessel lost during a sea voyage, or
a missing aircraft
b. Member of the armed forced who took part in
armed hostilities
c. In danger of death under other circumstances
For purposes of remarriage
GR: Absence of 4 years – under ordinary circumstances
EXC: Absence of 2 years – where there is danger of death
For purposes of opening the absentee’s succession
GR: Absence of 10 years
EXC: Absence of 5 years – if disappeared after the age of
75
IMPORTANT: Presumption of death only applies in the
absence of preponderance of evidence of the fact of
death. Otherwise, if the circumstances are such that it can
be reasonably established that the missing person is
actually dead, then you don’t wait for the period
prescribed by law to presume that the missing person is
dead. Preponderance of evidence can be established even
in the absence of the body of the person missing.

Ruling:
The SC disagreed with the wife, holding that the
presumption applies only if the evidence allegedly
suppressed is not equally available at the disposal of the
other party. In this case, the affidavit is a public document
which can be availed of by anyone. The accused could
have asked a subpoena to have the affidavit presented in
court.

Presumption relating to Death

In some cases, proof of death is necessary, like in cases
of opening of succession and claim insurance of proceeds.

An ideal way to prove dead is to present the dead body

but there are instances wherein the body is not found. The
rules now provide for this presumption of death that arises
from mere absence of an individual so when someone
disappears within a certain period prescribed by the rules
that absence could give rise to the presumption that the
absentee is dead.

Summary of Rules
For purposes OTHER than succession and
remarriage

GR: Absence of 7 years – under ordinary circumstances

University of San Carlos 6