24. GRANADA v.
PNB (Mika)
September 2, 1966 | J. Barrera | What need not be proved
Petitioner: DOLORES GRANADA and ESTRELLA GRANADA, ET AL.
Respondents: PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, ET AL
SUMMARY: This case involves unpaid sugar crop loans granted by PNB to
Dolores, Estrella, Feliza, and Corazon Granada (latter two deceased). While
there was no dispute as to the amount involved, the Granada sisters are
questioning the CA’s decision of sentencing them to pay, raising an issue
regarding an amended complaint by PNB.
In the amended complaint, the Granada sisters are said to be mere
representatives of their parents, Cristeta and Matias, who were the real
borrowers of the loan. Because they were mere representatives/agents, the
trial court ruled in their favor, but the CA reversed and ruled in PNB’s favor.
Apparently, the original complaint filed by PNB stated that it was really the
Granada sisters who borrowed the said loans from 1940-1942, and received
the money as evidenced by various PNs marked as Exhibits A to F and G to P.
The balances of the said loans were not paid by the sisters. This is what led
the CA to sentence them to pay for the sum.
Here, the issue is W/N the Granada sisters should pay for the loans 🡪 the
Court said YES.
(DOCTRINE)
As a general rule, facts alleged in a party's pleading are deemed admissions of
that party and binding upon it. However, that is not an absolute and inflexible
rule. Every admission is to be taken as an entirety of the fact which
makes for the one side with the qualifications which limit, modify or
destroy its effect on the other side. Where part of a statement of a party is
used against him as an admission, the court should consider and weigh any
other portions connected with the statement which tend to neutralize or explain
the portion which is against interest. While the admission is admissible in
evidence, its probative value is to be determined from the whole statement and
others intimately related or connected therewith. Although acts or facts
admitted do not require proof and cannot be contradicted, however, evidence
aliunde can be presented to show that the admission was made through
palpable mistake.
In filing the amended complaint, the plaintiff acted through a mistaken belief
that the adverted allegation in the amended complaint did not constitute an
amendment of its cause of action, and this matter was made known to the
court and the defendants when in its reply to the motion to dismiss it stated
that it 'has no document or evidence in its possession to hold the spouses
Matias and Cristeta Granada liable to the payment of the accounts.
The amended complaint may be treated as stating two or more
statements of a claim in a single cause of action, which is permitted under
Section 9, Rule 15, or it may be considered as including several defendants
in the alternative against any of which plaintiff may be entitled to relief, a
course of action sanctioned by Section 13, Rule 3.
FACTS:
1. This case involves unpaid sugar crop loans granted by PNB to Estrella,
Dolores, Feliza, and Corazon Granada.
● These loans were personally received by the Granadas and
promissory notes were executed after.
2. While there is no dispute as to the amount involved, the issue raised has
something to do with an amended complaint filed by PNB’s lawyer,
stating that:
“Defendants Dolores Granada and Estrella Granada, together with their
sisters Feliza Granada and Corazon Granada, who are now dead, as
representatives of their parents, Cristeta Granada and Matias
Granada, borrowed from and were granted by, the plaintiff sugar crop
loans for the cultivation and production of sugar canes in hacienda
Cristeta.
That said loan was released to, and received by, defendants Dolores
Granada and Estrella Granada and their sisters Feliza Granada and
Corazon Granada, as representatives of their parents Cristeta
Granada and Matias Granada, as evidenced by promissory notes
hereto attached as Exhibit A,B,C, etc. and made integral parts
hereof.”
Solely on the strength of the phrase “as representatives of their parents”
inserted in the amended complaint, petitioners Granada contended in
the trial court that they are not liable personally as they acted as mere
agents of a disclosed principal. This was sustained by the trial court, but
the CA reversed.
 3. Apparently, the original complaint filed by PNB alleged that the under Section 9, Rule 15, or it may be considered as including several
Granada sisters secured sugar crop loans from 1940-41 and 40-42, defendants in the alternative against any of which plaintiff may be
and received the money as evidenced by various PNs attached to said entitled to relief, a course of action sanctioned by Section 13, Rule 3.
original complaint marked as Exhibits "A" to "F" and "G" to "P,” that the a. There are cases where the facts essential to the party's claim
balances of said crop loans in the sum of P1,982.24 and P1,349.90 were or defense are within the knowledge of the adverse party, as to
not paid; hence, it was prayed that the defendants be sentenced to pay be unable to state them with certainty. He may, however, know
the same, plus interest and costs. that one out of two or more sets of facts is true, without knowing
which.
ISSUE/S: b. In such a case, plaintiff is allowed to make alternative
1. W/N the Granada sisters are liable for the loans - YES statements of his claim. On the other hand, the rules give the
plaintiff the right to include alternatively several possible
RATIO: defendants when he is uncertain against which of them he is
On whether or not the Granada sisters are liable for the loans - YES entitled to relief, as where a defendant may have been acting
1. As a general rule, facts alleged in a party's pleading are deemed either as an agent or a principal.
admissions of that party and binding upon it. However, that is not an c. Judging the said complaint from a liberal standpoint as
absolute and inflexible rule. Every admission is to be taken as an ordained by the Rules and considering that in the prayer
entirety of the fact which makes for the one side with the judgment is asked against all the defendants, Dolores Granada,
qualifications which limit, modify or destroy its effect on the other Estrella and Cristeta Granada, it is within the jurisdiction of the
side. court to render such judgment as the facts warrant against all or
a. Where part of a statement of a party is used against him as an some of the defendants for the payment of the amount claimed
admission, the court should consider and weigh any other by the plaintiff."
portions connected with the statement which tend to neutralize
or explain the portion which is against interest. DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, this petition is hereby dismissed, with costs
b. While the admission is admissible in evidence, its probative against the petitioners. So ordered.
value is to be determined from the whole statement and others
intimately related or connected therewith as an integrated unit
for, as said by the Supreme Court, although acts or facts
admitted do not require proof and cannot be contradicted,
however, evidence aliunde can be presented to show that the
admission was made through palpable mistake.
2. The cause of action stated in the original complaint was against Dolores,
Estrella, Felisa and Corazon for the payment of the loan.
a. In filing the amended complaint, the plaintiff had acted through
a mistaken belief that the adverted allegation in the amended
complaint did not constitute an amendment of its cause of
action, and this matter was made known to the court and the
defendants when in its reply to the motion to dismiss it stated
that it 'has no document or evidence in its possession to hold
the spouses Matias and Cristeta Granada liable to the payment
of the accounts;
b. PNB honestly relied on the belief that the defendants, Dolores
and Estrella, surnamed Granada, had the necessary evidence
to establish the fact.
3. The amended complaint may be treated as stating two or more
statements of a claim in a single cause of action, which is permitted