FAUSTINA CAMITAN and DAMASO LOPEZ vs.

FIDELITY INVESTMENT CORPORATION which dispenses with the need for proof with respect to the matter or fact admitted. It
G.R. No. 163684. April 16, 2008 may be contradicted only by a showing that it was made through palpable mistake or
that no such admission was made

DOCTRINE:
A judicial admission is an admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the course of
the proceedings in the same case, which dispenses with the need for proof with respect
to the matter or fact admitted. It may be contradicted only by a showing that it was made
through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made.

FACTS:
Petitioners Camitan and Lopez filed a petition for issuance of another duplicate copy of
TCT before the RTC in Calamba, alleging that the owner’s copy was lost and cannot be
found. This was granted by the Calamba RTC.
Fidelity filed a petition for annulment of judgment and cancellation of the TCT alleging
that they had the owners duplicate of the TCT, obtained through purchase, and that they
have been in open and continuous possession of the subject land for about 27 years.
The Court of Appeals gave due course to the petition and ordered Fidelity to present the
TCT during the Preliminary Conference.
During the Preliminary Conference, the counsel for petitioners admitted to the
genuineness of the TCT presented by Fidelity. Petitioner’s counsel, in a subsequent
memorandum retracted his statement citing honest mistake and negligence owing to his
excitement and nervousness in appearing before the Court of Appeals. They also pointed
out some irregularities in the TCT.
Fidelity argues that Petitioners are bound by the Judicial Admission made by their
counsel nduring the preliminary conference.
The court of appeals held that the judicial admission is conclusive upon the party making
it and cannot be contradicted unless previously shown to have been made through
palpabke mistake or that no such admission was made. It also held that honest mistake
and negligence are not sufficient grounds to invalidate the admission.

ISSUE:
Whether the Court of Appeals erred when it did not consider that the judicial admission
of petitioners counsel was a palpable mistake? NO.

RULING:
Upon discovery of the issuance of a new owners duplicate copy of the TCT, Fidelity went
to the CA seeking to annul the judgment of the RTC. Unfortunately for petitioners, their
counsel admitted the genuineness of the ownerÊs duplicate copy of the TCT presented
by Fidelity during the preliminary conference at the CA.

The transcript of the preliminary conference indubitably shows that counsel for
petitioners made a judicial admission and failed to refute that admission during the said
proceedings despite the opportunity to do so. A judicial admission is an admission,
verbal or written, made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case,