Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

JOSHUA S. ALFELOR v. JOSEFINA M. HALASAN

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 182705 2014-07-18	VICENTE JOSEFA v. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY BRION, J.
These statements constitute deliberate, clear and unequivocal admissions of the causation in fact between the truck and the electricity post. Judicial admissions made by the parties in the pleadings or in the course of the trial or other proceedings in the same case are conclusive and do not require further evidence to prove them. These admissions cannot be contradicted unless previously shown to have been made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made.[44] A party who judicially admits a fact cannot later challenge this fact for the reason that judicial admissions remove an admitted fact from the field of controversy.[45]
	GR No. 172448 2012-02-22	BOARD OF REGENTS OF MINDANAO STATE UNIVERSITY v. ABEDIN LIMPAO OSOP LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In Alfelor v. Halasan,[63] the Court held that: Under this Rule, intervention shall be allowed when a person has (1) a legal interest in the matter in litigation; (2) or in the success of any of the parties; (3) or an interest against the parties; (4) or when he is so situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or disposition of property in the custody of the court or an officer thereof.[64]
	GR No. 175021 2011-06-15	REPUBLIC v. THI THU THUY T. DE GUZMAN LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The trial court's appreciation of the witnesses' testimonies is entitled to the highest respect since it was in a better position to assess their credibility. [70] The RTC held Cruz's testimony to be "not credit worthy" [71] for being irreconcilable with petitioner's earlier admissions. Contrary to petitioner's contentions, Cruz's testimony cannot be considered as a judicial admission against his interest as he is neither a party to the case nor was his admission against his own interest, but actually against either the petitioner's or the respondent's interest. Petitioner's statements on the other hand, were deliberate, clear, and unequivocal and were made in the course of judicial proceedings; thus, they qualify as judicial admissions. [72] In Alfelor v. Halasan, [73] this Court held that:
	GR No. 170575 2011-06-08	SPS. MANUEL AND FLORENTINA DEL ROSARIO v. GERRY ROXAS FOUNDATION DEL CASTILLO, J.
"A judicial admission is one so made in pleadings filed or in the progress of a trial as to dispense with the introduction of evidence otherwise necessary to dispense with some rules of practice necessary to be observed and complied with."[17] Correspondingly, "facts alleged in the complaint are deemed admissions of the plaintiff and binding upon him."[18] "The allegations, statements or admissions contained in a pleading are conclusive as against the pleader."[19]
	GR No. 186045 2011-02-02	MACTAN-CEBU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY v. HEIRS OF ESTANISLAO MIÑOZA PERALTA, J.
Under this Rule, intervention shall be allowed when a person has (1) a legal interest in the matter in litigation; (2) or in the success of any of the parties; (3) or an interest against the parties; (4) or when he is so situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or disposition of property in the custody of the court or an officer thereof.[18] Moreover, the court must take into consideration whether or not the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties, and whether or not the intervenor's right or interest can be adequately pursued and protected in a separate proceeding.
	GR No. 169914 2008-03-24	ASIA’S EMERGING DRAGON CORPORATION v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CORONA, J.
The interest contemplated by law must be actual, substantial, material, direct and immediate, and not simply contingent or expectant. It must be of such direct and immediate character that the intervenor will either gain or lose by the direct legal operation and effect of the judgment.[6]
	GR No. 156052 2008-02-13	SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY v. JOSE L. ATIENZA CORONA, J.
[T]he interest which entitles a person to intervene in a suit between other parties must be in the matter in litigation and of such direct and immediate character that the intervenor will either gain or lose by direct legal operation and effect of the judgment. Otherwise, if persons not parties to the action were allowed to intervene, proceedings would become unnecessarily complicated, expensive and interminable. And this would be against the policy of the law. The words "an interest in the subject" means a direct interest in the cause of action as pleaded, one that would put the intervenor in a legal position to litigate a fact alleged in the complaint without the establishment of which plaintiff could not recover.[56]
	GR No. 156052 2008-02-13	SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY v. JOSE L. ATIENZA CORONA, J.
While it is true that a party making a judicial admission cannot subsequently take a position contrary to or inconsistent with what was pleaded,[83] the aforestated rule is not applicable here. Respondent made the statements regarding the ordinances in civil case nos. 03-106379 and 06-115334 which are not "the same" as this case before us.[84] To constitute a judicial admission, the admission must be made in the same case in which it is offered.
	GR No. 175989 2008-02-04	GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. MARIANO A. NOCOM SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
In Alfelor v. Halasan,[4] we held that an intervention is valid when a person has: (1) a legal interest in the matter in litigation; (2) or in the success of any of the parties; (3) or an interest against the parties; (4) or when he is so situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or disposition of property in the custody of the court or an officer thereof.