This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
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] | |||||
|
2001-10-02 |
BUENA, J. |
||||
| In resolving the case at bench, this Court is not unaware of our pronouncement in Coca vs. Borromeo[13] and Mendoza vs. Teh[14] that whether a particular matter should be resolved by the Regional Trial Court (then Court of First Instance) in the exercise of its general jurisdiction or its limited probate jurisdiction is not a jurisdictional issue but a mere question of procedure. In essence, it is a procedural question involving a mode of practice "which may be waived".[15] | |||||