Sie sind auf Seite 1von 1

1. Camitan vs.

Fidelity shown to have been made through palpable mistake or that no

G.R. No. 163684. April 16, 2008. such admission was made.
o It said that honest mistake and negligence, as raised by Camitan
Facts: and Lopez in retracting their counsel's admission, are not sufficient
 Camitan and Damaso filed a Petition for the issuance of another duplicate grounds to invalidate the admission.
copy of Certificate of Title before RTC Calamba – the owner’s duplicate copy
was lost and cannot be found ISSUE: W/N CA erred when it did not consider the counsel’s judicial admission as
o This was GRANTED – Register of Deeds was ordered to issue a palpable mistake –
second owner's duplicate copy of the TCT, and declared void the
first owner's duplicate copy. HELD: NO – Petition DENIED, in favor of Fidelity
 Fidelity filed a Petition for annulment of judgment and cancellation of title
before the CA.
o It contends that it purchased the property which is the subject of  Camitan and Lopez argues that despite the existence of a judicial admission,
the TCT. there is still some leeway for the court to consider other evidence
o Fidelity argues that the RTC decision is null and void and it had no
jurisdiction to issue the owner's duplicate copy of the TCT was in
 The case provides a transcript of the preliminary conference in which it was
their possession.
o It claimed that the petitioners perjured themselves before the RTC indubitably shown that counsel for petitioners made a judicial admission
when they stated that the duplicate copy of the TCT was lost and and failed to refute that admission during the said proceedings despite the
that they gave notice to all who had interest in the property, opportunity to do so.
because they failed to notify Fidelity despite knowledge of the  A judicial admission is an admission, verbal or written, made by a party in
latter's possession of the property. the course of the proceedings in the same case, which dispenses with the
 CA gave due course to the petition for annulment of judgment. A need for proof with respect to the matter or fact admitted. It may be
preliminary conference was set and directed Fidelity to bring the owner's contradicted only by a showing that it was made through palpable mistake
duplicate copy of the TCT. or that no such admission was made.
o Fidelity’s counsel presented what was claimed to be the owner's  CA correctly ruled that such an admission may only be refuted upon a proper
duplicate copy of the TCT.
showing of palpable mistake or that no such admission was made. Thus, the
o Camitan and Damaso’s counsel examined the copy and admitted
claim of "honest mistake and negligence" on the part of the counsel due
that it was the genuine copy.
to his excitement and nervousness in appearing before the CA did not
o Fidelity manifested that they were no longer presenting evidence.
 In their memorandum, Camitan and Damaso retracted their counsel's suffice.
admission on the genuineness of the owner's duplicate copy of the TCT NOTES:
presented by Fidelity, citing honest mistake and negligence owing to his
excitement and nervousness in appearing before the CA. They pointed to May transcript sa full text na nakalagay na inamin ni Petitioner’s counsel na genuine
some allegedly irreconcilable discrepancies between the copy annexed to copy of the TCT yung hawak ni Fidelity.
the petition and the exhibit presented by Fidelity during the preliminary
On the issue of discrepancies – They are more imagined than real. Had these
purported discrepancies been that evident during the preliminary conference, it
 CA ruled in favor of Fidelity - It declared that the RTC was without jurisdiction
would have been easy for petitioners' counsel to object to the authenticity of the
to issue a second owner's duplicate copy of the title in light of the existence
owner's duplicate copy of the TCT presented by Fidelity. As shown in the transcript
of the genuine owner's duplicate copy in the possession of Fidelity, as
of the proceedings, there was ample opportunity for petitioners' counsel to examine
admitted by Camitan and Lopez through counsel.
the document, retract his admission, and point out the alleged discrepancies. But he
o According to the CA, a judicial admission is conclusive upon the
chose not to contest the document.
party making it and cannot be contradicted unless previously