B. Judicial Notice and Judicial Admissions (Rule 129)

Negative Pregnant

It is a denial pregnant with the admission of the substantial facts in the pleading responded to which are not squarely denied. It was in effect an admission of the averments it was directed at.

A negative pregnant is a form of negative expression which carries with it an affirmation or at least an implication of some kind favorable to the adverse party. It is a denial pregnant with an admission of the substantial facts alleged in the pleading.

Where a fact is alleged with qualifying or modifying language and the words of the allegation as so qualified or modified are literally denied, it has been held that the qualifying circumstances alone are denied while the fact itself is admitted. (Serrano Mahilum v. Spouses Ilano, G.R. No. 197923, June 22, 2015)

Example: A complaint, in par. 4, alleged that the plaintiff was unable to take actual possession of the property because of the “unwarranted adverse claim of rights of ownership and possession by the defendant, alleging sale by a certain Fe of said property to defendant, which if true, had no right whatsoever to legally dispose the above-described property not being the owner thereof.” In response, the answer of the defendant stated: “The defendant denies the material averments contained in par. 4, the truth being, that the defendant never asserted title of ownership to the property described in the complaint to anybody, much less to the herein plaintiff in virtue of any deed of conveyance executed in favor of the defendant by one Fe, nor claimed any possessory right over the said property, either by himself or through another.

The Court held that there was a negative pregnant in the defendant’s reply, which is to be construed as an implied admission. Particularly, when the plaintiff alleged that his inability to take actual possession of the parcel of land due to "an unwarranted adverse claim of rights of ownership and possession by the defendant," followed by an allegation of how such claim was exercised, the defendant’s denial is as to "the material averments contained in par. 4 of the Complaint," conjoined with his disclaimer of dominical or possessory rights in the manner alleged in the complaint. It thus appeared that he denied the averments in par. 4, but he did not deny the fact of ownership and right to possession of the plaintiff. (Galofa v. Nee Bon Sing, G.R. No. L-22018, 1968)

It does not qualify as a specific denial but is conceded to be actually an admission. (Riano, Civil Procedure: A Restatement for the Bar, 2nd ed, 2009)

A Written Request for Admission Filed and Served Upon Any Other Party May Include

• Request for the admission of the genuineness of any material and relevant document described in and exhibited with the request;
• Request for the admission of the truth of any material and relevant matter of fact set forth in the request.

Objections to any request for admission shall be submitted to the court WITHIN the period for and PRIOR to the filing of the sworn statement - not less than fifteen (15) calendar days after service of the request, or such further time as the court may allow on motion.

Such objections will defer compliance until such have been resolved by the court.

What need not be proved

• Facts which are presumed (Rule 131)
• Facts of judicial notice (Rule 129)
• Facts which are judicially admitted (Rule 129)
• Matters of law
• Except: Foreign law generally must be pleaded and proved as a fact. An official record of foreign law may be proved under Rule 132, Secs. 24 and 25; other competent proof may also be admissible.

In the case of presumptions, the proponent still has to introduce evidence of the basis of the presumption, that is, he has to introduce evidence of the existence or non-existence of the facts from which the court can draw the inference of the fact in issue.

In the case of judicial notice and judicial admissions, as a rule, the proponent does not have to introduce any evidence. (Regalado, p. 819)

EFFECT OF ADMISSION

Any admission made pursuant to such request is for the purpose of the pending action only. The admission may NOT be used against the party who gave it in any other proceeding.

Matters of judicial notice

JUDICIAL NOTICE – cognizance of certain facts which judges may properly take and act on without proof because they already know them.

Object of Judicial Notice

Judicial notice is based on convenience and expediency. It would certainly be superfluous, inconvenient, and expensive both to parties and the court to require proof, in the ordinary way, of facts which are already known to the courts.

Direct Effect of Judicial Notice

Judicial notice relieves the parties from the necessity of introducing evidence to prove the fact noticed. It makes evidence unnecessary. The stipulation and admission of the parties or counsel cannot prevail over the operation of the doctrine of judicial notice, and such stipulation and admissions are all subject to the operation of the doctrine.

Judge’s Personal Knowledge of the Facts

Judicial notice is not judicial knowledge. The mere personal knowledge of the judge is not the judicial knowledge of the court, and he is not authorized to make his individual knowledge of a fact, not generally or professionally known, the basis of his action. Courts must take judicial notice of the matters enumerated in Rule 129, Section 1, and may take judicial notice of matters of public knowledge, matters capable of unquestionable demonstration, or matters judges ought to know because of their judicial functions, subject to Section 3. (Rule 129, Sections 1–3, Revised Rules on Evidence, as amended by A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC; Spouses Latip v. Chua, G.R. No. 177809, 2009)

Mandatory

MANDATORY - the court shall take judicial notice of the matters listed in Rule 129, Section 1 without the introduction of evidence, subject to the hearing requirements of Rule 129, Section 3: during pre-trial and trial, the court shall hear the parties on the propriety of taking judicial notice of any matter; before judgment or on appeal, it shall do so if the matter is decisive of a material issue.

Section 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory. — A court shall take judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of the existence and territorial extent of states, their political history, forms of government and symbols of nationality, the law of nations, the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals, the political constitution and history of the Philippines, the official acts of legislative, executive and judicial departments of the National Government of the Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure of time, and the geographical divisions. (Rule 129, Sec. 1)

When Judicial Notice is Mandatory (Rule 129, Sec. 1)

• Existence and territorial extent of states

The territorial extent of the nation and of the several states and the division of states into towns, counties and other political subdivisions are generally regulated by public laws and also matters of general notoriety. Hence the courts do not require proof of such facts. (Herrera, Remedial Law Vol V, 78-79)

• Their political history, forms of government and symbols of nationality
• The law of nations

The law of nations, as opposed to foreign law, is subject to mandatory judicial notice as the Philippines adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land.

• The admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals
• The political constitution and history of the Philippines
• The official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial departments of the National Government of the Philippines

Reconstitution of a lost or destroyed title record does not finally determine ownership of the land. (Republic v. Rosario, G.R. No. 186635, 2016)

The Senate Report’s existence as an official act of the legislative department may be taken judicial notice of, but its factual findings are not thereby established as true or conclusive. (CLT Realty Development Corp. v. Hi-Grade Feeds Corporation, G.R. No. 160684, 2015)

• The laws of nature

Example: The recurrence of seasons

• The measure of time

Example: There are 24 hours in a day

• The geographical divisions

Example: Certain cities are divided into lots, blocks and streets.

Discretionary

DISCRETIONARY - may be at the court’s own initiative or on request of a party.

A hearing is necessary:

• During pre-trial and the trial, the court, motu proprio or upon motion, shall hear the parties on the propriety of taking judicial notice of any matter. (Rule 129, Sec. 3, par. 1)
• Before judgment or on appeal, the court, motu proprio or upon motion, may take judicial notice of any matter and shall hear the parties thereon if such matter is decisive of a material issue in the case. (Rule 129, Sec. 3, par. 2)

Purpose of hearing - not for the presentation of evidence but to afford the parties reasonable opportunity to present information relevant to the propriety of taking such judicial notice or to the tenor of the matter to be noticed.

Test of Notoriety

The doctrine of judicial notice rests on the wisdom and discretion of the courts. The power to take judicial notice is to be exercised by the courts with caution; care must be taken that the requisite notoriety exists; and every reasonable doubt upon the subject should be promptly resolved in the negative.

For a matter to be taken judicial notice of by the courts of law, it must be a subject of common and general knowledge. In other words, judicial notice of facts is measured by general knowledge of the same facts. A fact is said to be generally recognized or known when its existence or operation is accepted by the public without qualification or contention.

The test is whether the act involved is so notoriously known as to make it proper to assume its existence without proof. The fact that a belief is not universal, however, is not controlling for it is very seldom that any belief is accepted by everyone. It is enough that the matters are familiarly known to the majority of mankind or those persons with the particular matter in question. (20 Am Jur 49-50; Martin, Rules of Court 37, Second Edition).

Furthermore, a matter may be personally known to the judge and yet not be a matter of judicial knowledge and vice versa, a matter may not be actually known to an individual judge, and nevertheless be a proper subject of judicial cognizance. (Republic v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-54886, 1981)

Under Rule 129, Section 2 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, as amended in 2019, a court may take judicial notice of matters of public knowledge, matters capable of unquestionable demonstration, and matters judges ought to know because of their judicial functions, subject to Section 3 of the same Rule. A judicially noticed fact must be one NOT subject to a reasonable dispute. A court may take judicial notice of an otherwise qualifying fact even if it is material or contested. Under Rule 129, Section 3, the court shall hear the parties on the propriety of taking judicial notice during pre-trial and trial; before judgment or on appeal, it shall hear them if the matter is decisive of a material issue.

When Judicial Notice is Discretionary (Rule 129, Sec. 2)

• The matter is one of public or common knowledge

“Commonly Known”

Things of “common knowledge,” of which courts take judicial notice, may be matters coming to the knowledge of men generally in the course of the ordinary experiences of life, or they may be matters which are generally accepted by mankind as true and are capable of ready and unquestioned demonstration. Thus, facts which are universally known, and which may be found in encyclopedias, dictionaries or other publications, are judicially noticed, provided they are of such universal notoriety and so generally understood that they may be regarded as forming part of the common knowledge of every person. (Spouses Omar and Moshiera Latip v. Chua, G.R. No. 177809, 2009)

Judicial notice is not judicial knowledge

The mere personal knowledge of the judge is not the judicial knowledge of the court, and he is not authorized to make his individual knowledge of a fact, not generally or professionally known, the basis of his action. Judicial cognizance is taken only of those matters which are "commonly" known. (Land Bank v. Wycoco, G.R. No. 140160, 2004)

• The matter must be capable of unquestionable demonstration

Matters which are capable of unquestionable demonstration pertain to fields of professional and scientific knowledge. Thus, facts which are universally known, and which may be found in encyclopedias, dictionaries or other publications, are judicially noticed, provided, they are of such universal notoriety and so generally understood that they may be regarded as forming part of the common knowledge of every person. (Expertravel & Tours, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 152392, 2005.)

• The matter is one that ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions.

An example would be facts which are ascertainable from the record of court proceedings, e.g., as to when court notices were received by a party.

This only applies to the records and events in the same case pending before the court. Courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of the contents of the records of other cases, even when such cases have been tried or are pending in the same court and pending before the same judge. (People v. Hernandez, G.R. No. 108028, September 8, 1997)

The taking of judicial notice is a matter of expediency and convenience for it fulfills the purpose that the evidence is intended to achieve, and in this sense, it is equivalent to proof. (Land Bank of the Philippines v. Yatco Agricultural Enterprises, G.R. No. 172551, 2014.)

When Hearing is NECESSARY

Purpose - not for the presentation of evidence but to afford the parties reasonable opportunity to present information relevant to the propriety of taking such judicial notice or to the tenor of the matter to be noticed.

Stages Where the Court May Take Judicial Notice of a Fact

• Pre-trial
• During Trial;
• After trial and before judgment;
• Appeal

Note: The court may do this motu proprio or upon motion of the parties

Distinction Between Judicial Notice Taken During Trial and That Taken After Trial but Before Judgment or on Appeal:

Judicial Notice of Records of Other Cases

General Rule: Courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of the contents of the records of other cases, even when such have been tried or are pending in the same court and with the same judge.

Exceptions:

They may, however, take judicial notice of a decision or the facts prevailing in another case sitting in the same court if:

• The parties present them in evidence, absent any opposition from the other party.
• The court, in its discretion, resolves to do so. (Land Bank of the Philippines v. Yatco Agricultural Enterprises, G.R. No. 172251, 2014)

In the absence of objection, and as a matter of convenience to all parties, a court may properly treat all or any part of the original record of a case filed in its archives as read into the record of a case pending before it when:

• In the absence of objection;
• With the knowledge of the opposing party OR at the request or with the consent of the parties; and
• The case is clearly referred to OR the original or part of the records of the case are actually withdrawn from the archives AND admitted as part of the record of the case then pending.

These conditions must be established. (Tabuena v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 85423, 1991)

Other Jurisprudence on Judicial Notice

Judicial notice signifies that there are certain “facta probanda” or propositions in a party’s case, as to which he will not be required to offer evidence; these will be taken for true by the tribunal without the need of evidence. (People v. Rullepa, G.R. No. 131516, 2003)

This Court takes judicial notice that the validity of the RTC Orders has been upheld in a separate petition before this Court, under G.R. SP No. 171429 entitled Antonio Dela Cruz v. Regulus Development, Inc. (Regulus Development, Inc. v. Antonio Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 198172, January 25, 2016)

The mere personal knowledge of the judge is not the judicial knowledge of the court, and he is not authorized to make his individual knowledge of a fact, not generally or professionally known, the basis of his action.

In this case, judicial notice of the age of the victim is improper, despite the defense counsel’s admission thereof acceding to the prosecution's motion. The victim’s age cannot be judicially noticed merely because the parties are heard on the matter; it must be proved by competent evidence unless a ground for judicial notice under Rule 129 is established. Section 3 governs the opportunity to be heard, while Section 2 governs discretionary judicial notice. Generally, the age of the victim may be proven by the birth or baptismal certificate of the victim, or in the absence thereof, upon showing that said documents were lost or destroyed, by other documentary or oral evidence sufficient for the purpose. (People v. Tundag, G.R. Nos. 135695-96. October 12, 2000)

A management contract entered into by a GOCC such as that involving the Philippine Ports Authority is not something the courts can take judicial notice of, because it was entered into while performing a proprietary function (Asian Terminals v. Malayan Insurance, G.R. No. 171406, 2011)

Judicial notice may be taken of the fact that contractual transactions with government or any of its instrumentalities are invariably in writing. (Board of Liquidators v. Ricma, G.R. No. L-24318, 1969)

The Court takes judicial cognizance of the fact that in rural areas in the Philippines, young ladies are strictly required to act with circumspection and prudence (People v. Godoy, G.R. Nos. 115908-09, 1995)

We point out in this respect that courts cannot take judicial notice that vehicular accidents cause whiplash injuries. This proposition is not public knowledge, or capable of unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions. We have no expertise in the field of medicine. Justices and judges are only tasked to apply and interpret the law on the basis of the parties’ pieces of evidence and their corresponding legal arguments. (Dela Llana v. Biong, G.R. No. 182356, 2013)

In international law, the party who wants to have a foreign law applied to a dispute or case has the burden of proving the foreign law. The foreign law is treated as a question of fact to be properly pleaded and proved as the judge or labor arbiter cannot take judicial notice of a foreign law. He is presumed to know only domestic or forum law. Where a foreign law is not pleaded or, even if pleaded, is not proved, the doctrine of processual presumption applies and the presumption is that foreign law is the same as ours. (ATCI Overseas Corp. v. Echin, G.R. No. 178551, 2010)

Distinction between Mandatory Judicial Notice and Discretionary Judicial Notice

JUDICIAL NOTICE OF FOREIGN LAWS, LAW OF NATIONS AND MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE

Rule on Foreign Laws

General Rule: Courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws. Foreign laws have to be proved like any other fact. (Del Socorro v. Van Wilsem, G.R. 193707, 2014)

Exceptions:

• In instances when the said laws are already within the actual knowledge of the court, such as when they are well and generally known or they have been actually ruled upon in other cases before it and none of the parties concerned do not (sic) claim otherwise (PCIB v. Escolin, G.R. Nos. L-27860 and L-27896, 1974)

A published treatise, periodical or pamphlet on a subject of history, law, science, or art is admissible as tending to prove the truth of a matter stated therein if the court takes judicial notice, or a witness expert in the subject testifies, that the writer of the statement in the treatise, periodical or pamphlet is recognized in his or her profession or calling as expert in the subject. (Rule 130, Sec. 48) Judicial notice under this rule concerns the writer’s recognized expertise; it does not dispense with proof of foreign law.

Stipulation by the parties – If the parties in a given case do not have any controversy or are more or less in agreement, the Court may take it for granted for the purposes of the particular case before it that the said laws are as such virtual agreement indicates, without the need of requiring the presentation of what otherwise would be the competent evidence on the point. (PCIB v. Escolin, G.R. Nos. L-27860 and L-27896, 1974)

Rule on Court Records

• Court’s Own Acts and Records

A court shall take judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of the official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial departments of the National Government of the Philippines. (Rule 129, Section 1)

A court will take judicial notice of its own acts and records in the same case, of facts established in prior proceedings in the same case, and of the authenticity of its own records of another case between the same parties. Judicial notice of a record’s existence or authenticity does not make its contents evidence in the pending case. The court may not take judicial notice of the contents of files of related cases or public records on file in the same court merely because they are on file there; the exceptions stated below must apply. (Degayo v. Magbanua-Dinglasan, G.R. No. 173148, April 6, 2015)

• Records of Other Cases

General Rule - Courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of the contents of the records of other cases, even when such have been tried or are pending in the same court and with the same judge.

Exceptions:

• A party clearly makes reference to the records of another case and there is no objection by the other party;
• Judicial notice is at the request or with the consent of the parties; or
• The original or part of the records of the case are actually withdrawn from the archives and are admitted as part of the record of the case pending. (Tabuena v. CA, G.R. No. 85423, 1991)

Judicial Notice of Other Matters

• A court can take judicial notice of banking practices. (Solidbank Corp. v. Mindanao Ferroalloy Corp., G.R. No. 153535, July 28, 2005)
• A court cannot take judicial notice of an administrative regulation or of a statute that is not yet effective. (State Prosecutors v. Muro, A.M. No. RTJ-92-876, September 19, 1994)
• A court cannot take judicial notice of the age of the victim without hearing and presentation of proof. (People v. Liban, G.R. Nos. 136247 & 138330, November 22, 2000)

The Court has taken judicial notice of the practices of banks and other financial institutions. Precisely, it has noted that it is their uniform practice, before approving a loan, to investigate, examine and assess would-be borrowers' credit standing or real estate offered as security for the loan applied for. (Solidbank Corp. v. Mindanao Ferroalloy Corp., G.R. No. 153535, July 28, 2005)

Judicial admissions

Admissions, oral or written, made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case do not require proof. (Rule 129, Sec. 4)

Elements of Judicial Admissions

• Must be made by a party to a case; and
• Must be made in the course of the proceedings in the same case.
• No particular form is required; thus, a judicial admission may be oral or written.

Forms of Judicial Admission

• May be oral

Examples:

• Verbal waiver of proof made in open court
• Admission made by a party in the course of the party’s testimony or deposition (Rule 129, Sec. 4, Rules of Evidence, as amended in 2019)
• May be written

Examples:

• Pleading
• Bill of Particulars
• Stipulation of Facts (People v. Hernandez, G.R. No. 108028, September 8, 1997)
• Sworn Response to a Request for Admission
• Affidavit used in the case
• Depositions
• Written Interrogatories
• Motions (Republic v. de Guzman, G.R. No. 175021, 2011)

Judicial admissions may be made by either a party or his counsel.

When a defendant is declared in default for having failed to answer the complaint, such a failure does not amount to an admission of the facts alleged in the complaint.

To be considered a judicial admission, the admission must be made in the same case; otherwise, it is an extrajudicial admission.

Extra-Judicial Admissions– are those made out of court, or in a judicial proceeding other than the one under consideration.

Distinction between Judicial Admission and Extra-Judicial Admission

Effect of judicial admissions

An admission, oral or written, made by the party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof. (Rule 129, Sec. 4)

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 respondent spouses. If anything, the additional evidence they presented only served to corroborate the petitioners' admission. (Dimaguila v. Sps. Monteiro, G.R. No. 201011, 2014)

Judicial admissions are legally binding on the party making the admissions. (Sps. Noynay v. Citihomes Builder & Development, Inc., G.R. No. 204160, 2014)

A judicial admission binds the person who makes the same, and absent any showing that this was made through palpable mistake, no amount of rationalization can offset it. (CIR v. MERALCO, G.R. No. 181459, 2014)

Though the title to the property was initially filed in court through the Joint Answer, however, petitioner Republic failed to refute the same, and even marked it during pre-trial. Hence, petitioner Republic already admitted its genuineness and due execution. Such judicial admission was correctly considered by public respondent Sandiganbayan in resolving the demurrer to evidence. When the due execution and genuineness of an instrument are deemed admitted because of the adverse party's failure to make a specific verified denial thereof, the instrument need not be presented formally in evidence for it may be considered an admitted fact. (Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 189590, 2018)

How judicial admissions may be contradicted

General Rule: A judicial admission is conclusive upon the party making it and does not require proof

Exceptions: Judicial admissions may be contradicted ONLY by showing that:

• the admission was made through PALPABLE MISTAKE
• the imputed admission was not, in fact, made.

This may be invoked when the statement of a party is taken out of context or his statement was made not in the sense it is made to appear by the other party. (Phil. Health Care Providers v. Estrada, G.R. No. 171052, 2008)

Remedies of a Party Who Made a Judicial Admission

• Motion to Withdraw: for written judicial admissions, by filing a motion to withdraw the pleadings, motion or other written instrument containing such admission; or by moving that such admission be deemed withdrawn or disregarded due to palpable mistake.
• Motion for Exclusion: for oral judicial admissions, counsel in open court may move for the withdrawal or exclusion of such admission due to palpable mistake.

Admissions in Drafted Documents

An admission made in a document drafted for purposes of filing as a pleading but never filed, is not a judicial admission. If signed by a party, it is deemed an extrajudicial admission. If signed by the attorney, it is not a judicial admission by the party merely because the attorney signed it. Whether the attorney’s statement may be admitted against the client depends on the attorney’s authority and the rule on admissions by an agent under Rule 130, Section 30 of the Revised Rules on Evidence.

Hypothetical Admissions

Not all allegations or admissions in civil cases may be considered as judicial admissions because the Rules on Civil Procedure allow a litigant to make hypothetical admissions in his pleading.

Admissions in the Pre-Trial of Civil Cases

In civil cases, pre-trial is mandatory. Therefore, a party’s admissions at pre-trial or in that party’s deposition or discovery responses may constitute judicial admissions when made in the course of the same case.

Distinction: Admissions in Pre-Trial

Admissions in Amended Pleadings

When a pleading is amended, the amended pleading supersedes the pleading that it amends and the admissions in the superseded pleading may be received in evidence against the pleader as extrajudicial admissions which must be proven.

Having been amended, the original complaint loses its character as a judicial admission which would require no proof. It is now an extrajudicial admission which requires proof (Torres v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-37420, July 31, 1984)

Admissions by Counsel

General Rule: Admissions by a counsel are generally conclusive upon his client.

Negligence of counsel binds the client (Sarraga v. Banco Filipino Savings & Mortgage Bank, G.R. No. 143783).

Exception: In cases where:

• Reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the client of due process of law;
• When its application will result in outright deprivation of the client’s liberty or property; or
• When the interests of justice so require: Relief is accorded the client who suffered by reason of the lawyer’s gross or palpable mistake or negligence. (Villanueva v. People, G.R. No. 188630, 2011)

How to Contest an Actionable Document

• By specific denial under oath; and
• By setting forth what is claimed to be the facts.

Where the Actionable Document is Properly Alleged, the Failure to Specifically Deny UNDER OATH the Same Results in:

• The admission of the genuineness and due execution of said document, EXCEPT that an oath is NOT required:
• When the adverse party was not a party to the instrument; or
• When compliance with an order for an inspection was refused.
• The document need not be formally offered in evidence. For it may be considered an admitted fact. (Philamgen v. Sweet Lines, G.R. No. 87434, 1992)

Under the 2019 Rules, a Reply may be filed only if the Answer attaches an actionable document. The plaintiff must specifically deny under oath the genuineness and due execution of an actionable document attached to the Answer; otherwise, they are deemed admitted. (Rule 6, Sec. 10; Rule 8, Sec. 8)

Thus, where a plaintiff fails to file a Reply with specific denials under oath of documents attached in the Answer, his failure constitutes a judicial admission which should be considered by the judge, even in resolving a demurrer to evidence. (Casent Realty v. Philbanking, G.R. No. 150731, 2007)

GENUINENESS means that the document is

• Not spurious, counterfeit, or of different import on its face from the one executed by the party; or
• That the party whose signature it bears has signed it;
• That at the time it was signed, it was in words and figures exactly as set out in the pleadings (not altered).

Adoptive Admissions

An adoptive admission is a party’s reaction to a statement or action by another person when it is reasonable to treat the party’s reaction as an admission of something stated or implied by the other person. The basis for admissibility of admissions made vicariously is that arising from the ratification or adoption by the party of the statements which the other person had made. In the Angara Diary, Estrada’s options started to dwindle when the armed forces withdrew its support. Thus, Executive Secretary Angara had to ask Senate President Pimentel to advise petitioner to consider the option of dignified exit or resignation. Estrada did not object to the suggested option but simply said he could never leave the country. His silence on this and other related suggestions can be taken as an admission by him. (Estrada v. Desierto, G.R. Nos. 146710-15, 2001)

> RULE 129 Section 4. Judicial admissions. – An admission, oral or written, made by [the] party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof. The admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that the imputed admission was not, in fact, made. (4a)

> RULE 131 BURDEN OF PROOF, BURDEN OF EVIDENCE AND PRESUMPTIONS Section 1. Burden of proof and burden of evidence. – Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his or her claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law. Burden of proof never shifts. Burden of evidence is the duty of a party to present evidence sufficient to establish or rebut a fact in issue to establish a prima facie case. Burden of evidence may shift from one party to the other in the course of the proceedings, depending on the exigencies of the case. (1a) Section 2. Conclusive presumptions. – The following are instances of conclusive presumptions:

(a) Whenever a party has, by his or her own declaration, act, or omission, intentionally and deliberately led another to believe a particular thing true, and to act upon such belief, he or she cannot, in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act or omission, be permitted to falsify it; and (b) The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his or her landlord at the time of the commencement of the relation of landlord and tenant between them. (2a) Section 3. Disputable presumptions. – The following presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence:

(a) That a person is innocent of crime or wrong; (b) That an unlawful act was done with an unlawful intent; (c) That a person intends the ordinary consequences of his or her voluntary act; (d) That a person takes ordinary care of his or her concerns; (e) That evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced; (f) That money paid by one to another was due to the latter; (g) That a thing delivered by one to another belonged to the latter; (h) That an obligation delivered up to the debtor has been paid; (i) That prior rents or installments had been paid when a receipt for the later one is produced; (j) That a person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker and the doer of the whole act; otherwise, that things which a person possesses, or exercises acts of ownership over, are owned by him or her;

(k) That a person in possession of an order on himself or herself for the payment of the money, or the delivery of anything, has paid the money or delivered the thing accordingly; (l) That a person acting in a public office was regularly appointed or elected to it; (m) That official duty has been regularly performed; (n) That a court, or judge acting as such, whether in the Philippines or elsewhere, was acting in the lawful exercise of jurisdiction; (o) That all the matters within an issue raised in a case were laid before the court and passed upon by it; and in like manner that all matters within an issue raised in a dispute submitted for arbitration were laid before the arbitrators and passed upon by them; (p) That private transactions have been fair and regular; (q) That the ordinary course of business has been followed; (r) That there was a sufficient consideration for a contract; (s) That a negotiable instrument was given or indorsed for a sufficient consideration; (t) That an indorsement of a negotiable instrument was made before the instrument was overdue and at the place where the instrument is dated; (u) That a writing is truly dated; (v) That a letter duly directed and mailed was received in the regular course of the mail; (w) That after an absence of seven [(7)] years, it being unknown whether or not the absentee still lives, he or she is considered dead for all purposes, except for those of succession. The absentee shall not be considered dead for the purpose of opening his or her succession until after an absence of ten [(10)] years. If he or she disappeared after the age of seventy- five [(75)] years, an absence of five [(5)] years shall be sufficient in order that his or her succession may be opened. The following shall be considered dead for all purposes including the division of the estate among the heirs: (1) A person on board a vessel lost during a sea voyage, or an aircraft which is missing, who has not been heard of for four [(4)] years since the loss of the vessel or aircraft; (2) A member of the armed forces who has taken part in armed hostilities, and has been missing for four [(4)] years; (3) A person who has been in danger of death under other circumstances and whose existence has not been known for four [(4)] years; and (4) If a married person has been absent for four [(4)] consecutive years, the spouse present may contract a subsequent marriage if he or she has a well-founded belief that the absent spouse is already dead. In case of disappearance, where there is a danger of death[, under] the circumstances hereinabove provided, an absence of only two [(2)] years shall be sufficient for the purpose of contracting a subsequent marriage. However, in any case, before marrying again, the spouse present must institute summary proceeding[s] as provided in the Family Code and in the rules for declaration of presumptive death of the absentee, without prejudice to the effect of reappearance of the absent spouse[;] (x) That acquiescence resulted from a belief that the thing acquiesced in was conformable to the law or fact;

(y) That things have happened according to the ordinary course of nature and the ordinary habits of life; (z) That persons acting as copartners have entered into a contract of copartnership; (aa) That a man and woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage; (bb) That property acquired by a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other and who live exclusively with each other as husband and wife[,] without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage, has been obtained by their joint efforts, work or industry[;] (cc) That in cases of cohabitation by a man and a woman who are not capacitated to marry each other and who have acquired property through their actual joint contribution of money, property or industry, such contributions and their corresponding shares[,] including joint deposits of money and evidences of credit[,] are equal[;] (dd) That if the marriage is terminated and the mother contracted another marriage within three hundred [(300)] days after such termination of the former marriage, these rules shall govern in the absence of proof to the contrary:

• A child born before one hundred eighty (180) days after the solemnization of the subsequent marriage is considered to have been conceived during [the former] marriage, [provided] it be born within the three hundred [(300)] days after the termination of the former marriage; and
• A child born after one hundred eighty (180) days following the celebration of the subsequent marriage is considered to have been conceived during such marriage, even though it be born within the three hundred [(300)] days after the termination of the former marriage[;]

(ee) That a thing once proved to exist continues as long as is usual with things of that nature; (ff) That the law has been obeyed; (gg) That a printed or published book, purporting to be printed or published by public authority, was so printed or published; (hh) That a printed or published book, purporting to contain reports of cases adjudged in tribunals of the country where the book is published, contains correct reports of such cases; (ii) That a trustee or other person whose duty it was to convey real property to a particular person has actually conveyed it to him or her when such presumption is necessary to perfect the title of such person or his or her successor in interest; (jj) That except for purposes of succession, when two [(2)] persons perish in the same calamity, such as wreck, battle, or conflagration, and it is not shown who died first, and there are no particular circumstances from which it can be inferred, the survivorship is determined from the probabilities resulting from the strength and the age of the sexes, according to the following rules:

• If both were under the age of fifteen [(15)] years, the older is deemed to have survived;
• If both were above the age of sixty [(60)], the younger is deemed to have survived;
• If one is under fifteen [(15)] and the other above sixty [(60)], the former is deemed to have survived;
• If both be over fifteen [(15)] and under sixty [(60)], and the sex be different, the male is deemed to have survived, if the sex be the same, the older; and
• If one be under fifteen [(15)] or over sixty [(60)], and the other between those ages, the latter is deemed to have survived;

(kk) That if there is a doubt, as between two [(2)] or more persons who are called to succeed each other, as to which of them died first, whoever alleges the death of one prior to the other, shall prove the same; in the absence of proof, they shall be considered to have died at the same time. (3a) Section 4. No presumption of legitimacy or illegitimacy. – There is no presumption of legitimacy or illegitimacy of a child born after three hundred [(300)] days following the dissolution of the marriage or the separation of the spouses. Whoever alleges the legitimacy or illegitimacy of such child must prove his or her allegation. (4a) Section 5. Presumptions in civil actions and proceedings. – In all civil actions and proceedings not otherwise provided for by the law or these Rules, a presumption imposes on the party against whom it is directed the burden of going forward with evidence to rebut or meet the presumption. If presumptions are inconsistent, the presumption that is founded upon weightier considerations of policy shall apply. If considerations of policy are of equal weight, neither presumption applies. (n) Section 6. Presumption against an accused in criminal cases. – If a presumed fact that establishes guilt, is an element of the offense charged, or negates a defense, the existence of the basic fact must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and the presumed fact follows from the basic fact beyond reasonable doubt. (n)

Judicial Admissions v. Presumptions

Two Types of Admissions:

• JUDICIAL ADMISSION - one made in a judicial proceeding under consideration.
• EXTRAJUDICIAL ADMISSION - one made out of court or in a judicial proceeding other than the one under consideration.

Updated: Courts may relax the general requirement of a formal offer of evidence in appropriate instances (Spouses Cesa v. Spouses Brucelas, G.R. No. 255564, 5 March 2025).

Admission by a co-partner or agent

The act or declaration of a partner or agent of the party may be given in evidence against that party provided that the following requisites are present:

• That the partnership or agency be previously proven by evidence other than the admission itself.
• The act or declaration refers to a matter within the scope of his authority or the partner or agent was authorized by the party to make a statement concerning the subject
• The act or declaration was made during the existence of the partnership or agency. (Rule 130, Sec. 30)

Reason: Identity of interests between the copartners or agents.

Admission by silence

An act or declaration made in the presence and within the hearing or observation of a party who does or says nothing when the act or declaration is such as naturally to call for action or comment if not true, and when proper and possible for him to do so, may be given in evidence against him or her. (Rule 130, Sec. 33)

Applicability to Criminal Cases

Admission by silence may apply in criminal cases only when a response was proper and possible under Rule 130, Sec. 33 of the Revised Rules on Evidence; an accused’s exercise of the constitutional right to remain silent cannot be treated as an implied admission under Art. III, Secs. 12 and 17 of the 1987 Constitution. (People v. Paragsa, G.R. No. L-44060, 1978) But Before the Silence of a Party can be Taken as an Admission of What is Said, it Must Appear that:

• He heard and understood the statement;
• He was at liberty to interpose a denial;
• The statement was in respect to some matter affecting his rights or in which he was then interested, and calling, naturally, for an answer;
• The facts were within his knowledge; and
• The fact admitted or the inference to be drawn from his silence would be material to the issue. (People v. Paragsa, G.R. No. L-44060, 1978)