EVIDENCE | B2015
CASE DIGESTS
Heirs of Clemena v. Heirs
of Bien
September 11, 2006
Corona, J.
Rañeses, Roberto Miguel O.
SUMMARY: Irene Bien (predecessor of the Heirs of Bien)
filed a case for recovery of possession and ownership of
several parcels of land, one being the land covered by Tax
Dec. 5299, against Pedro Clemeña y Zurbano. One of
Pedro Clemeña y Zurbano’s statements in his answer said
that the land was in his exclusive possession. While the
case was pending resolution, the parties were substituted
by their respective heirs. The RTC ruled in favor of the
Heirs of Clemeña, but subsequently reconsidered its
findings, stating that none of the parties proved their
ownership of the subject land. The CA affirmed the RTC,
but reversed the RTC’s findings with regard to the land
covered by Tax Dec. 5299. It awarded damages to the
Heirs of Bien, as well as stating that it was the Heirs of
Bien who had ownership over the land. When the case
reached the SC, the Heirs of Clemeña claimed that they
should not be liable for damages because, for one, they
never took possession of the SC. The SC dismissed such
claim, stating that they were bound by the statement of
Pedro Clemeña y Zurbano, which amounted to a judicial
admission.
DOCTRINE: An admission, verbal or written, made by a
party in the course of proceedings in the same case, does
not require proof. The admission may be contradicted only
by showing that it was made through palpable mistake or
that no such admission was made. (Sec. 4, Rule 129, RoC)
A judicial admission conclusively binds the party making it.
He cannot thereafter contradict it. The exception is found
only in those rare instances when the trial court, in the
exercise of its discretion and because of strong reasons to
support its stand, may relieve
consequences of his admission.
a party from the
FACTS: The subject land in this case, covered with Tax Dec.
No. 5299, with a surface area of more or less 20,644 sq. m.,
was one of three lots involved in two consolidated cases for
recovery of possession and ownership filed by Irene Bien
(predecessor of the respondents) against Pedro Clemeña y
Zurbano (predecessor of the petitioner).
Bien’s averments as found in the complaint:
1. She acquired the land by purchase from Victoriano
Napa in a deed of sale.
2. Napa acquired the same lot by purchase from
Francisco Barrameda who bought the land from the
administrator of the estate of Pedro Clemeña y
Conde.
3. Ever since Pedro Clemeña y Zurbano was removed
as administrator of the said estate in 1939
deliberately continued to occupy and usurp the
possession and use of the subject land.
4. The defendant has also refused to relinquish the
possession of the same to the lawful owner,
considering he has no right or any color of title.
5. The plaintiff (Bien) will suffer damages and in fact
has suffered damages beginning Oct. 1943 at the
rate of 25 cavans of palay per harvest of 50 cavans
yearly.
Pedro Clemeña y Zurbano’s answer:
1. The land was his and was in his exclusive possession.
2. Claim of ownership based on a sale by the estate of
the late Pedro Clemeña y Conde to his predecessor-
in-interest.
Neither of the parties lived to see the end of the trial, being
succeeded by their heirs. Case was then re-raffled to the
RTC of Legaspi City in Nov. 1994.
Ruling of the RTC:

1. Ruled in favor of the Heirs of Clemeña, declaring
them as the absolute owners of the subject land.
2. Subsequently reconsidered its findings and ruled that
both parties failed to prove their respective claims.
Therefore, the land belonged to the original owner.
a. The land covered by Tax Dec. No. 5299 was
not included in the lands sold by the estate of
Pedro Clemeña y Conde to Francisco
Barrameda (predecessor of Irene Bien).
b. Neither was it included in the sale executed
by Special Administrator Salustiano Zubeldia
in favor of Jesus Salazar (predecessor-in-
interest of the Heirs of Clemeña).
c. The Heirs of Clemeña, in their MR, no longer
disputes the ownership of the Heirs of Bien as
regards another parcel of land [Tax Dec.
5681] involved in another case, the latter
have been declared as owners thereof.
d. No damages are due the Heirs of Bien, as
there was no proof that the Heirs of Clemeña
entered and occupied a portion of the
abovementioned property.
e. Another parcel of land [Tax Dec. No. 5685]
was included in the sale executed by Special
Administrator Zubeldia to Jesus Salazar, and
the deed of sale is earlier than the sale
executed in favor of Barameda. Therefore, the
Heirs of Clemeña are declared the owners
thereof.
Ruling of the CA: Affirmed the ruling of the RTC regarding
the other two parcels of land, but reversed the ruling on the
ownership of the land covered by Tax Dec. No. 5299
(subject land in this case).
• Awarded the Heirs of Bien P118,000 in damages as
compensation for their having been deprived of
possession and the owner’s share in the harvest.
• Based the finding of ownership in favor of the Heirs
of Bien on some documents of sale.
EVIDENCE | B2015
CASE DIGESTS
• Based the amount of damages on the testimony of
George Clemeña1.
The motion for reconsideration of the Heirs of Clemeña was
denied.
ISSUES: WON the Heirs of Clemeña should be liable for
damages awarded by the CA to the Heirs of Bien.
RULING: Yes, they should be liable for damages.
1
“Q: This second parcel of land described in the SECOND cause of action
which is Tax No. 5299, what kind of land is this?
A: Riceland.
Q: How big is this parcel of land?
A: More or less, two (2) hectares.
Q: What is the average owner’s share of the harvest?
A: About fifty cavans of palay.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: From the time you filed this case in the year 1943, who had been
receiving the owner’s share from this property, known as Tax No. 5299?
A: The late Pedro Clemeña y Zurbano when he was still alive and then his
children after his death.”
He likewise testified on the changes in the price of a cavan of palay over
the years, thus:
“Q: What was the current average price of palay after liberation, starting
from the year 1945 up to 1950?
A: About Fifteen (P15.00) Pesos a sack.
Q: How about after 1950 to 1960?
A: The same.
Q: How about from 1960 to 1970?
A: At present, it is Twenty Five (P25.00) Pesos per cavan.”
We believe, in the exercise of discretion, that the [respondents] are entitled
to an award of damages in the amount of P118,000 computed in the
following manner: P1,500.00 (50 cavans multiplied by two [the number of
harvests in a year] multiplied by P15.00) multiplied by 27 years (1943 to
1970) and P2,700.00 (50 cavans multiplied by two [the number of harvests
in a year] multiplied by P25.00) multiplied by 31 years (1971-2001).

RATIO:
Arguments of the Heirs of Clemeña:
They no longer dispute the ownership the subject parcel of
land. However, they claim that they should not be liable for
damages because:
1. They never took possession of the subject lot.
2. The evidence the CA rlied on to determine the
amount of damages, as it was based on the
testimony of one of the plaintiffs, was self-serving
and therefore could not have been a proper basis for
such an award.
Supreme Court:
1. The Heirs of Clemeña’s contention that the land was
never in their possession must be dismissed.
a. Pedro Clemeña y Zurbano’s alleged in his
answer that the land with Tax Dec. 5299 was
in his exclusive possession.
i. This statement took on the
character of a judicial admission
as stated in Sec. 4, Rule 129 of the
RoC.
1. A judicial admission
conclusively binds the party
making it. He cannot
thereafter contradict it. The
exception is found only in
those rare instances when
the trial court, in the
exercise of its discretion
and because of strong
reasons to support its
stand, may relieve a party
from the consequences of
his admission.
ii. The rule on judicial admissions found
its way into black-letter law only in
1964, but its contents had been
supplied by much older case law.
EVIDENCE | B2015
CASE DIGESTS
1. Irlanda v. Pitargue: acts or facts
admitted do not require proof
and cannot be contradicted
unless it can be shown that the
admission was made through
palpable mistake.
2. Ramirez v. Orientalist Co.: An
admission made in a pleading
can not be controverted by the
party making such admission;
and all proof submitted by him
contrary thereto or inconsistent
therewith should simply be
ignored by the court, whether
objection is interposed by the
opposite party or not
3. Cunanan v. Amparo: the
allegations, statements, or
admissions contained in a
pleading are conclusive as
against the pleader. A party
cannot subsequently take a
position contrary to, or
inconsistent with, his pleadings.
b. Given the above pronouncements, the Heirs
of Clemeña can no longer say that were never
in possession of the land.
i. They are bound by the admission of
Pedro Clemeña y Zurbano.
ii. Such statement cannot be
contradicted without any showing of
palpable mistake.
c. Furthermore, the issue of possession is a
question of fact. Questions of this nature
cannot be raised in a petition for review on
certiorari as the remedy is confined to pure
questions of law.
i. The Heirs of Clemeña invoke the
exceptions to the doctrine, namely: (1)
the factual findings of the trial court
 EVIDENCE | B2015
CASE DIGESTS

and the CA are contradictory; (2) the examination by the other party, and
decision sought to be reviewed is therefore, not susceptible to an
against the law and in complete objection on the ground that it is self-
disregard of the rules on evidence; (3) serving.
there was grave abuse of discretion in e. The Heirs of Clemeña never once alleged,
the appreciation of facts; and (4) the much less tried to show, that his testimony
CA failed to notice relevant facts and was inaccurate or untrue. As already
evidence which if properly considered observed, petitioners’ objection is founded
would justify a different conclusion. solely on the mere fact that he, being a
ii. The case does not fall within any of the plaintiff, was a witness interested in the
above. outcome of the case.
2. As for the testimony of Gregorio Clemeña, the Heirs f. Now, it is true that a party’s interest may to
of Clemeña claim that it is self-serving and therefore some extent affect his credibility as a witness
an improper basis for the damages awarded to the To insist otherwise would be the height of
Heirs of Bien, the same must be dismissed. naiveté. Nonetheless, the SC cannot subscribe
a. “Self-serving evidence,” perhaps owing to its to the view, implicit in petitioners’ argument,
descriptive formulation, is a concept much that a party’s testimony favorable to himself
misunderstood. must be disregarded on account solely of his
b. The term is employed as a weapon to devalue interest in the case.
and discredit a party’s testimony favorable to
his cause. That, it seems, is the sense in DISPOSITIVE: WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED.
which petitioners are using it now. This is a The April 4, 2002 decision and October 1, 2002 resolution of
grave error. the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 50912 are AFFIRMED.
c. “Self-serving evidence” is not to be taken
literally to mean any evidence that serves its
proponent’s interest.
i. The term, if used with any legal sense,
refers only to acts or declarations
made by a party in his own interest at
some place and time out of court, and
it does not include testimony that he
gives as a witness in court.
d. Evidence of this sort is excluded on the same
ground as any hearsay evidence, that is, lack
of opportunity for cross-examination by the
adverse party and on the consideration that
its admission would open the door to fraud
and fabrication.
i. In contrast, a party’s testimony in
court is sworn and subject to cross-