Santos vs.

Lumbao (510 S 408)

Topic: Judicial Admission Binding on Party

Facts:

 The Petitioners are the surviving heirs and daughter in law of the late Rita Catoc Santos.
 Respondents are the alleged owner of a certain lot which they purportedly bought from Rita
during her lifetime.
 On 2 separate occasion, Rita sold to respondents Spouses Lumbao the subject property which is
part of her share in the estate of her deceased mother, Maria Catoc, who died intestate. On the
1st occasion Rita sold 100sqm of her inchoate share in her mother’s estate through a documnent
denominated as “Bilihan ng Lupa”, the spouses claimed that the execution of the document was
witnessed by Petitioners Virgilio and Tadeo as shown by their signature affixed therein. On the
2nd occasion an additional 7sqm was added to the lands as evidenced by a document also
denominated as “Bilihan ng Lupa”.
 After acquiring the subject property, respondent spouses took actual possession thereof and
erected thereon a house which they have been occupying exclusively up to the present.
 As the exclusive owner of the subject property, the respondent spouses made several verbal
demands upon Rita during her lifetime and thereafter upon herein petitioners for them to
execute the necessary documents to effect the issuance of a separate title in favor of the
respondent spouses in so far as the subject property is concerned. Prior to her death, Rita
informed respondent Spouses that she could not deliver the title to the subject property
because the entire property inherited by her and heir co-heirs had not yet been partitioned.
 Respondent spouses claimed that petitioners acting fraudulently and in conspiracy with one
another executed a deed of extrajudicial settlement adjudicating and partitioning among
themselves and the other heirs the estate of Maria, which included the subject property already
sold to the respondent spouses.
 Respondent spouses sent a formal demand letter to petitioner but the later failed and refused
to reconvey the subject property to the respondent spouses. Consequently the respondent filed
a complaint for Reconveyance with Damages before the RTC of pasig.
 In their answer the petitioners denied the allegations and prayed for the dismissal of the
complaint for lack of cause of action because the respondent spouses failed to comply with the
Revised Katarungan Pambarangay Law under R.A. No. 7160, which required first to resort to
barangay conciliation.
 With leave of court Respondent Spouses amended their complaint because they discovered that
without their knowledge, petitioners executed a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage in favor of Jilieta
Esplana, which was annotated at the back of the TCT title.
 RTC decided in favor of the Petitioner, CA Reversed the decision of the RTC and decided in favor
of the Respondent

Issue:
  W/N the agreements named “Bilihan ng Lupa” are null and void for being falsified
documents as it made to appear that Petitioners Virgilio and Tadeo were present in the
execution of the said documents?

Ruling: No

 As a general rule that admissions made by a party in a pleading are binding and conclusive
upon him applies in this case.
 Upon examination of the aforesaid documents, the court finds that in the Bilihan ng Lupa,
the signatures of petitioners Virgilio and Tadeo appeared thereon, moreover in their Answer
and amended answer to the complaint for reconveyance with damages, both made an
admission that indeed they acted as witness in the execution of the Bilihan ng Lupa,
however in order to avoid obligation on the said contract, petitioner Virgilio in his cross-
examination denied having knowledge of the sale transaction and claimed that he could not
remember the same as well as the appearance to the Notary public due to the length of
time that had passed. Petitioner Virgilio did not categorically denied having signed the said
agreement.
 As a general rule facts alleged in the pleading are deemed admission of the party and
binding upon him, petitioner had not adduced any evidence to override the admission made
in their answer that petitioners Virgilio and Tadeo actually signed the agreement (Bilihan ng
Lupa), except that they were just misled as to the purpose of the said document, thus the
general rules applies that the admission made by the party in a pleading are binding and
conclusive upon him applies in the case at bar