This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2012-02-08 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| It is of no moment that plaintiff ECI failed to object to Mrs. Capistrano's evidence at the trial that the subject documents were forgeries. As the Court ruled in Elayda v. Court of Appeals,[15] the trial court may reject evidence that a party adduces to contradict a judicial admission he made in his pleading since such admission is conclusive as to him. It does not matter that the other party failed to object to the contradictory evidence so adduced. | |||||
|
2006-03-31 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Likewise, when called to testify, Teresita admitted several times that she knew that her late husband had been previously married to another. To the Court's mind, this admission constitutes a "deliberate, clear and unequivocal" statement; made as it was in the course of judicial proceedings, such statement qualifies as a judicial admission. [21] A party who judicially admits a fact cannot later challenge that fact as judicial admissions are a waiver of proof;[22] production of evidence is dispensed with.[23] A judicial admission also removes an admitted fact from the field of controversy.[24] Consequently, an admission made in the pleadings cannot be controverted by the party making such admission and are conclusive as to such party, and all proofs to the contrary or inconsistent therewith should be ignored, whether objection is interposed by the party or not. [25] The allegations, statements or admissions contained in a pleading are conclusive as against the pleader. A party cannot subsequently take a position contrary of or inconsistent with what was pleaded. [26] | |||||
|
2005-09-23 |
|||||
| Respondent's unequivocal admission of the transaction which gave rise to the complaint establishes the applicability of estoppel against it. Rule 129, Section 4[53] of the Rules on Evidence provides that a written admission made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case does not require proof. We held in the case of Elayda v. Court of Appeals,[54] that an admission made in the pleadings cannot be controverted by the party making such admission and are conclusive as to him.[55] Thus, our consistent pronouncement, as held in cases such as Merril Lynch Futures v. Court of Appeals,[56] is apropos:The rule is that a party is estopped to challenge the personality of a corporation after having acknowledged the same by entering into a contract with it. And the "doctrine of estoppel to deny corporate existence applies to foreign as well as to domestic corporations;" "one who has dealt with a corporation of foreign origin as a corporate entity is estopped to deny its existence and capacity." The principle "will be applied to prevent a person contracting with a foreign corporation from later taking advantage of its noncompliance with the statutes, chiefly in cases where such person has received the benefits of the contract . . ."[57] | |||||
|
2005-09-20 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Elementary is the rule that this Court is not the appropriate venue to consider anew the factual issues as it is not a trier of facts, and, it generally does not weigh anew the evidence already passed upon by the Court of Appeals.[14] When this Court is tasked to go over once more the evidence presented by both parties, and analyze, assess and weigh them to ascertain if the trial court and the appellate court were correct in according superior credit to this or that piece of evidence of one party or the other, the Court cannot and will not do the same.[15] Such task is foreclosed by the rule enunciated under Section 1 of Rule 45[16] of the Rules of Court:SECTION 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court. - . . . The petition shall raise only questions of law[17] which must be distinctly set forth. | |||||