Torres vs CA –  GR L-37421, July 31, 1984

Private Respondent file a complaint of against forcible Entry against the petitioner. Days after, the petitioner institute an action for partition of the disputed property. RTC consolidated the case declaring the petitioner a legitimate child of Margarita and the rightful heir for the 4/6 of the property of Margarita. Respondents appealed the case to the Court of Appeals which rendered the decision in favor of the respondents and declaring the petitioner as an illegitimate child of Margarita. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration and a motion for New Trial for newly found evidence. CA denied both, hence the elevation of this dispute to the SC.

1. Whether the Appellate Court erred in not admitting as evidence the judicial admission of the respondent pertaining to the appellant’s legitimacy in the former’s original complaint which was subsequently amended.
2. Whether the Appellate Court erred in not granting the Motion for New trial for newly found evidence.

1. No, if petitioner had desired to utilize the original complaint, she should have offered it in evidence. Having been amended, the original complaint lost its character as a judicial admission, which would have required no proof, and became merely an extrajudicial admission, the admissibility of which, as evidence, required its formal offer. Contrary to petitioner’s submission, therefore there can be no estoppel by extrajudicial admission made in the original complaint, for failure to offer it in evidence.

2. Yes, new trial was warranted to prevent a possible miscarriage of justice. Assuming that the genuineness and due execution of the Sworn Statement of March 5, 1930 is established in accordance with procedural due process, a new trial would resolve such vital considerations as
a. whether or not said Sworn Statement qualifies as the public document prescribed in Article 131 of the old Civil Code.
b. whether or not it conforms to an act of acknowledgment by the parents after the celebration of their marriage as required by Article 121 of the same code; and
c. whether or not petitioner’s signature as a witness to said document was the equivalent of the consent necessary for acknowledgment of an adult person under Article 133 of that Code.
Affirmative answers would confer upon petitioner the status of a legitimated child of her parents, and would entitle her to enjoy hereditary rights to her mother’s estate.

One thought on “Torres vs CA –  GR L-37421, July 31, 1984

  1. Pingback: EVIDENCE

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: