Qualification of Witnesses

Sec. 20. Witnesses; their qualifications. – Except as provided in the next succeeding section, all persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make known their perception to others, may be witnesses.

Religious or political belief, interest in the outcome of the case, or conviction of a crime unless otherwise provided by law, shall not be a ground for disqualification.

Qualifications of witnesses

1.   can perceive

2.   perceiving

3.   can make known their perception to others

NOT ground for disqualification

1.   religious belief

2.   political belief

3.   interest in the outcome of the case, or

4.   conviction of a crime, unless otherwise provided by law, e.g.

a. A state witness must not have been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude [Rule 119, Sec. 17 (e)]

b. A person who has been convicted of falsification of a document, perjury or false testimony is disqualified from being a witness to a will (Art. 821 NCC)

Who are disqualified from testifying?

1. Total or absolute disqualification (§ 20 and 21, Rule 130, RC)

 

    a. can’t perceive

    b. not perceiving

    c. can’t make known their perception to others

    d. Disqualified by reason of mental incapacity

    e. Disqualified by reason of mental immaturity

2. Partial or relative disqualification – the witness is qualified to be a witness but is disqualified from testifying on certain matters (§ 22-24, Rule 130, RC)

    a. Disqualified by reason of marriage

b. Disqualified by reason of death or insanity of adverse party

c. Disqualified by reason of privileged communication

Need for distinction

With regards to the subject matter of the testimony, we must make a distinction between absolute disqualifications and relative disqualifications. Objections based on absolute disqualifications may be raised upon the calling of the disqualified witness. Objections based on relative disqualifications may be raised when it becomes apparent that the subject matter of the testimony covers inadmissible matters.

read more...

Burden of Proof

Sec 1. Burden of proof.—Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law

read more...

Presumptions

What is a presumption?

A presumption is an assumption of fact resulting from a rule of law which requires such fact to be assumed from another fact or group of facts found or otherwise established in the action (Black’s, 5^th Ed., 1067 citing Uniform Rule 13; NJ Evidence Rule 13).

A presumption is not evidence (California Evidence Code cited in Black’s, 5^th Ed., 1167). They merely affect the burden of offering evidence (1 Wharlton’s Criminal Evidence, Sec. 64). It is not evidence in itself but it is an assumption resulting from the evidence.

 In a sense, a presumption is an inference which is mandatory unless rebutted (29 Am Jur 29 Evidence § 181).

Example

D is the debtor of C, creditor for P1 Million payable in twelve (12) equal monthly installments. If evidence is introduced that the installment payment for December has been received by the creditor, a presumption arises that previous installment have been paid. This is because under the law, the receipt of a later installment of a debt, without reservation as to prior installments, shall give rise to the presumption that such installments have been paid (Art. 1176, Civil Code of the Philippines).

Inference distinguished from a presumption

An inference is a factual conclusion that can rationally be drawn from other facts (Computer Identics Corp. v. Southern Pacific Corporation Co. CA1 Mass). It is however, one that is a result of a reasoning process. It need not have a legal effect because it is not mandated by law.

A presumption is mandated by law and establishes a legal relation between or among the facts.

Kinds of presumptions

A presumption may either be:

    (a) conclusive (presumptions juris et de jure); or

    (b) disputable/rebuttable (presumptions juris tantum)

Conclusive presumption

A presumption is conclusive when the presumption becomes irrebuttable upon the presentation of the evidence tending to rebut the presumption is not admissible. This presumption is in reality a rule of substantive law (29 Am Jur 2d Evidence § 183).

Disputable presumption

A presumption is disputable or rebuttable or if it may be contradicted or overcome by other evidence (Sec. 3, Rule 131, Rules of Court). When evidence that rebuts the presumption is introduced, the force of the presumption disappears. Example: While evidence of receipt of payment of a later installment gives rise to the presumption that previous installments have been paid, yet when evidence is shown that prior installments remain unpaid, the presumption falls.

The presumption that an accused is innocent of the crime charged until the contrary is proven is a presumption of law embodied in the Constitution (Sec. 14(2), Art. III, Bill of Rights, Constitution of the Philippines). Art. 1176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines also illustrates another presumption mandated by the law. Under the said provision, when the receipt of the principal by the creditor is proven without reservation with respect to the interest, there is a presumption that said interest has been paid.

read more...

Disputable presumptions

Disputable presumptions.—The following presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence:

(a) That a person is innocent of crime or wrong;

(b) That an unlawful act was done with an unlawful intent;

(c) That a person intends the ordinary consequences of his voluntary act;

(d) That a person take ordinary care of his concerns;

(e) That evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced;

(f) That money paid by one to another was due to the latter;

(g) That a thing delivered by one to another belonged to the latter;

(h) That an obligation delivered up to the debtor has been paid;

(i) That prior rents or installments had been paid when a receipt for the later ones is produced;

(j) That a person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker and the doer of the whole act; otherwise, that things which a person possesses, or exercises acts of ownership over, are owned by him;

(k) That a person in possession of an order on himself for the payment of the money, or the delivery of anything, has paid the money or delivered the thing accordingly;

(l) That a person acting in a public office was regularly appointed or elected to it;

(m) That official duty has been regularly performed;

(n) That a court, or judge acting as such, whether in the Philippines or elsewhere, was acting in the lawful exercise of jurisdiction;

(o) That all the matters within an issue raised in a case were laid before the court and passed upon by it; and in like manner that all matters within an issue raised in a dispute submitted for arbitration were laid before the arbitrators and passed upon by them;

(p) That private transactions have been fair and regular;

(q) That the ordinary course of business has been followed;

(r) That there was a sufficient consideration for a contract;

(s) That a negotiable instrument was given or indorsed for a sufficient consideration;

(t) That an indorsement of a negotiable instrument was made before the instrument was overdue and at the place where the instrument is dated;

(u) That a writing is truly dated;

(v) That a letter duly directed and mailed was received in the regular course of the mail;

(w) That after an absence of seven years, it being unknown whether or not the absentee still lives, he is considered dead for all purposes, except for those of succession.

The absentee shall not be considered dead for the purpose of opening his succession till after an absence of ten years. If he disappeared after the age of seventy-five years, an absence of five years shall be sufficient in order that his succession may be opened.

The following shall be considered dead for all purposes including the division of the estate among the heirs:

(1) A person on board a vessel lost during a sea voyage, or an aircraft which is missing, who has not been heard of for four years since the loss of the vessel or aircraft;

(2) A member of the armed forces who has taken part in armed hostilities, and has been missing for four years;

(3) A person who has been in danger of death under other circumstances and whose existence has not been known for four years;

(4) If a married person has been absent for four consecutive years, the spouse present may contract a subsequent marriage if he or she has a well-founded belief that the absent spouse is already dead. In case of disappearance, where  there is danger of death under  the  circumstances hereinabove provided an absence of only two years shall be sufficient for the purpose of contracting a subsequent marriage. However, in any case, before marrying again, the spouse present must institute a summary proceeding as provided in the Family Code and in the rules for a declaration of presumptive death of the absentee, without prejudice to the effect of reappearance of the absent spouse.

(x) That acquiescence resulted from a belief that the thing acquiesced in was conformable to the law or fact;

(y) That things have happened according to the ordinary course of nature and the ordinary habits of life;

(z) That persons acting as copartners have entered into a contract of copartnership;

(aa) That a man and woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage;

(bb) That property acquired by a man and woman who are capacitated to marry each other and who live exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage, has been obtained by their joint efforts, work or industry.

(cc) That in cases of cohabitation by a man and a woman who are not capacitated to marry each other and who have acquired property through their actual joint contribution of money, property or industry, such contributions and their corresponding shares including joint deposits of money and evidences of credit are equal.

(dd) That if the marriage is terminated and the mother contracted another marriage within three hundred days after such termination of the former marriage, these rules shall govern in the absence of proof to the contrary:

(1) A child born before one hundred eighty days after the solemnization of the subsequent marriage is considered to have been conceived during the former marriage, provided it be born within three hundred days after the termination of the former marriage;

(2) A child born after one hundred eighty days follow­ing the celebration of the subsequent marriage is considered to have been conceived during such marriage, even though it be born within the three hundred days after the termination of the former marriage.

(ee) That a thing once proved to exist continues as long as is usual with things of that nature;

(ff) That the law has been obeyed;

(gg) That a printed or published book, purporting to be printed or published by public authority, was so printed or published;

(hh) That a printed or published book, purporting to contain reports of cases adjudged in tribunals of the country where the book is published, contains correct reports of such cases;

(ii) That a trustee or other person whose duty it was to convey real property to a particular person has actually conveyed it to him when such presumption is necessary to perfect the title of such person or his successor in interest;

(jj) That except for purposes of succession, when two persons perish in the same calamity, such as wreck, battle, or conflagration, and it is not shown who died first, and there are no particular circumstances from which it can be inferred, the survivorship is determined from the probabilities resulting from the strength and age of the sexes, according to the following rules:

1. If both were under the age of fifteen years, the older is deemed to have survived;

2. If both were above the age of sixty, the younger is deemed to have survived;

3. If one is under fifteen and the other above sixty, the former is deemed to have survived;

4. If both be over fifteen and under sixty, and the sex be different, the male is deemed to have survived; if the sex be the same, the older;

5. If one be under fifteen or over sixty, and the other between those ages, the latter is deemed to have survived.

(kk) That if there is a doubt, as between two or more persons who are called to succeed each other, as to which of them died first, whoever alleges the death of one prior to the other, shall prove the same; in the absence of proof, they shall be considered to have died at the same time.(5a)

Sec. 4. No presumption of legitimacy or illegitimacy.—There is no presumption of legitimacy or illegitimacy of a child born after three hundred days following the dissolution of the marriage or the separation of the spouses. Whoever alleges the legitimacy or illegitimacy of such child must prove his allegation.

Cases

People v. Padiernos, 69 SCRA 484 (1976) Mere non-presentation of a written statement of a witness to the police which she allegedly did not sign, does not give rise to the presumption that it "contained declarations disastrous to the prosecution case". The presumption that suppressed evidence is unfavorable does not apply where the evidence was at the disposal of both the defense and the prosecution through use of compulsory processes, e.g. subpoena duces tecum.

People v. Pablo, 213 SCRA 1 (1992) The presumption that evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced does not apply when the testimony of the witness is merely corroborative. Neither does it apply in cases where the witness, as in this case, is available to the accused because then, the evidence would have the same weight against one party as against the other. Mere failure to present the poseur-buyer in a buy-bust operation is not suppression of evidence.

Pascual v. Angeles, 4 Phil. 604 (1905)

Ormachea v. Trillana, 13 Phil. 194 (1909)

Yee Hem v. United States, 268 U.S. 178 (1925)

County Court of Ulster City v. Allen, 442 U.S. 140

Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510 (1979)

read more...

Conclusive Presumptions

Sec. 2. Conclusive presumptions. – The following are instances of conclusive presumptions:

(a) Whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act, or omission, intentionally and deliberately led another to believe a particular thing true, and to act upon such belief, he cannot, in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act or omission, be permitted to falsify it:

(b) The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord at the time of the commencement of the relation of landlord and tenant between them.

Basis

Pars. (a) and (b) is based upon the doctrine of estoppel in pais. 

● The fact which a party in estoppel has represented to be true is conclusively presumed as against him to be true and he is not permitted to introduce evidence to the contrary. (Lazo vs. Republic Surety, L-27365, Jan. 30, 1970)

● The ownership of the landlord at start of the tenancy relation is conclusively presumed as against the tenant and the latter is not permitted to dispute such fact. 

Estoppel (Arts. 1431-1439, Civil Code)

Art. 1431. Through estoppel an admission or representation is rendered conclusive upon the person making it, and cannot be denied or disproved as against the person relying thereon.  

Art. 1432. The principles of estoppel are hereby adopted insofar as they are not in conflict with the provisions of this Code, the Code of Commerce, the Rules of Court and special laws.

Art. 1433. Estoppel may in pais or by deed.

Art. 1439. Estoppel is effective only as between the parties thereto or their successors in interest.

Art. 1434. When a person who is not the owner of a thing sells or alienates and delivers it, and later the seller or grantor acquires title thereto, such title passes by operation of law to the buyer or grantee.

Art. 1435. If a person in representation of another sells or alienates a thing, the former cannot subsequently set up his own title as against the buyer or grantee.

Art. 1436. A lessee or a bailee is estopped from asserting title to the thing leased or received, as against the lessor or bailor.

Art. 1437. When in a contract between third persons concerning immovable property, one of them is misled by a person with respect to the ownership or real right over the real estate, the latter is precluded from asserting his legal title or interest therein, provided all these requisites are present:

(1) There must be fraudulent representation or wrongful concealment of facts known to the party estopped;

(2) The party precluded must intend that the other should act upon the facts as misrepresented;

(3) The party misled must have been unaware of the true facts; and

(4) The party defrauded must have acted in accordance with the misrepresentation.  

Art. 1438. One who has allowed another to assume apparent ownership of personal property for the purpose of making any transfer of it, cannot, if he received the sum for which a pledge has been constituted, set up his own title to defeat the pledge of the property, made by the other to a pledgee who received the same in good faith and for value.

Cases

Molina v. CA, 109 Phil 769 (1960)

Facts: Felix Molina then overseer of Basilisa Manjon, informed her that some guerilla soldiers would arrest her for investigation, because one Conchita Cuba complained to them against her for having illegally encroached on her property. Afraid to be taken to the guerilla camp Manjon asked the Molina what was best for her to do. He suggested that she execute a fictitious deed of sale in his favor for the portion in question which was the one claimed by Conchita Cuba, in order that he could defend her rights in his name against the claim of Conchita Cuba. Manjon accepted the suggestion and asked Molina to have the corresponding deed of sale prepared which Manjon signed. However, Manjon made Molina sign a statement in which he expressly admitted that the transaction was only a simulated sale. Molina denied the whole story and asserted that the statement was a forgery. Manjon sues Molina for recovery of possession of land. TC ruled for the Manjon on the ground that she could not have disposed the land because it was part of the public domain, sales patent having been issued to plaintiff by the government only on 1948. CA affirms.

Held: Under the doctrine of estoppel by deed, when a person who is not the owner of a thing sells or alienates and delivers it and later the seller or grantor acquires title thereto, such title passes by operation of law to the buyer or grantee. Case remanded to determine whether the sale was indeed fictitious.

Fige v. CA, 233 SCRA 586 (1994) The juridical relation between petitioners and private respondents is that of lessee and lessor. Considering this jural relationship, petitioners cannot claim that they purchased the questioned lot from somebody else. A tenant cannot, in an action involving the possession of the leased premises, controvert the title of his landlord. Nor can a tenant set up any inconsistent right to change the relation existing between himself and his landlord, without first delivering up to the landlord the premises acquired by virtue of the agreement between themselves.

read more...

Judicial Notice

What need not be proved

1.  matters of mandatory judicial notice

2.  matters of discretionary judicial notice

3.  judicial admissions

Judicial notice

Judicial notice is the cognizance of certain facts which judges may properly take and act on without proof because they already know them.

Basis

Judicial notice is based on considerations of expediency an convenience. It operates to save trouble, expense and time which will be lost in establishing in the ordinary way facts which do not admit of contradictions.

A.  Mandatory (Rule 129 §1)

Sec. 1.  Judicial notice, when mandatory. - A court shall take judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of the existence and territorial extent of states, their political history, forms of government and symbols of nationality, the law of nations, the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals, the political constitution and history of the Philippines, the official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial departments of the Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure of time, and the geographical divisions. 

Mandatory Judicial Notice

1. existence and territorial extent of states, their political history, forms of government and symbols of nationality

2.  the law of nations

3.  the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals

4.  the political constitution and history of the Philippines

5. the official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial departments of the Philippines

6.  the laws of nature

7.  the measure of time, and

8.  the geographical divisions

B. Discretionary (Rule 129 §2)

Sec. 2.  Judicial notice, when discretionary. - A court may take judicial notice of matters which are of public knowledge, or are capable of unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions. 

Discretionary judicial notice – matters which are

1. of public knowledge, or

2. are capable of unquestionable demonstration, or

3. ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions

C.  When hearing required (Rule 129 §3)

Sec. 3.  Judicial notice, when hearing necessary. - During the trial, the court, on its own initiative, or on request of a party, may announce its intention to take judicial notice of any matter and allow the parties to be heard thereon.

After the trial, and before judgment or on appeal, the proper court, on its own initiative or on request of a party, may take judicial notice of any matter and allow the parties to be heard thereon if such matter is decisive of a material issue in the case.

When court takes judicial notice

1.  During trial – any matter and allow the parties to be heard thereon

2. After trial, and before judgment or on appeal – any matter and allow the parties to be heard thereon if such matter is decisive of a material issue in the case

Hence, the court can take judicial notice of any matter during the trial as long as there is a hearing. If trial is already over, the court can take judicial notice only of matters decisive of a material issue in the case as long as there is a hearing (p. 88, Francisco).

de Leon: Why on earth would a court take judicial notice of a matter which is not decisive of a material issue in a case?

Foreign laws

The question as to what are the laws of a foreign state is one of fact, not of law. Foreign laws may not be taken judicial notice of and have to be proved like any other fact, except where said laws are within the actual knowledge of the court such as when they are well and generally known or they have been actually ruled upon in other cases before it and none of the parties claim otherwise. (PCI Bank vs. Escolin, L-67896, March 29, 2974)

To prove the foreign law, the requirements of Sections 24 and 25, Rule 132 must be complied with, that is, by an official publication or by a duly attested and authenticated copy thereof. The provisions of the foreign law may also be the subject of judicial admission under Sec. 4, Rule 129. Absent any of the foregoing evidence or admission, the foreign law is presumed to the same as that in the Philippines, under the so-called doctrine of processual presumption. (CIR vs Fisher, L-11622, Jan. 28, 1961)

To prove an unwritten foreign law, the provisions of Sec. 46, Rule 130 supply the evidential sources or remedies. (Wildvalley Shipping vs. CA, G.R. No. 119602, October 6, 2000)

When a foreign law is part of a published treatise, periodical or pamphlet and the writer is recognized in his profession or calling as expert in the subject, the court may take judicial notice of the treatise containing the foreign law.

When a foreign law refers to the law of nations, said law is subject to mandatory judicial notice under Sec. 1, Rule 129.

Under the Philippine Constitution, the Philippines adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land. They are therefore technically in the nature of local laws and hence, are subject to a mandatory judicial notice.

Municipal ordinances

MTCs must take judicial notice of municipal ordinances in force in the municipality in which they sit.

RTCs must take judicial notice of municipal ordinances in force in the municipalities within their jurisdiction only 

1. when so required by law. For instance, the charter of City of Manila requires all courts sitting therein to take judicial notice of all ordinances passed by the city council (City of Manila vs. Garcia, 19 SCRA 413)

2. in case on appeal before them and wherein the inferior court took judicial notice of an ordinance involved in said case (US vs. Blanco, 37 Phil 126; US vs, Hernandez, 31 Phil 342).

The Court of Appeals may take judicial notice of municipal ordinances because nothing in the Rules prohibits it from taking cognizance of an ordinance which is capable of unquestionable demonstration (Gallego vs People, L-18247, August 31, 1963).

Cases pending before the court

As a general rule courts are not authorized to take judicial notice, in the adjudication of cases pending before them, of the contents of the records of other cases, even when such cases have been tried or are pending in the same court, and notwithstanding the fact that both cases may have been heard or are actually pending before the same judge. 

However, an exception is when in the absence of objection, and as a matter of convenience to all parties, a court may properly treat all or any part of the original record of a case filed in its archives as read into the record of a case pending before it, when, with the knowledge of the opposing party, reference is made to it for that purpose, by name and number or in some other manner by which it is sufficiently designated; or when the original record of the former case or any part of it, is actually withdrawn from the archives by the court's direction, at the request or with the consent of the parties, and admitted as a part of the record of the case then pending. (Tabuena v. Court of Appeals, 196 SCRA 650, 1991)  

Cases

City of Manila v. Garcia, 19 SCRA 413 (1967)

Baguio v. Vda. de Jalagat, 42 SCRA 337 (1971)

Prieto v. Arroyo, 14 SCRA 549 (1965)

Ozaeta Romulo etc. , 92 SCRA 1 (1979)

Yao-Kee v. Sy-Gonzales, 167 SCRA 736 (1988)

People v. Godoy, 250 SCRA 676 (1995)
Figueras vs. Serrano, 52 Phil 28
T'Boli Agro-Industrial vs. Solilapsi, Adm. Case No. 4766, Dec. 27, 2002)
Chattamal vs. Collector of Customs, 42 Phil 916)

read more...

Judicial Admissions

Sec. 4. Judicial admissions. - An admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the course of the 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.

What is a judicial admission?

A judicial admission is an admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, which dispenses with the need for proof with respect to the matter or fact admitted. (Manuel Ybiernas et al. vs. Ester Tanco-Gabaldon, G.R. No. 178925, June 1, 2011)

Requisites for judicial admission

1.   Made by a party

2.   In the course of the proceedings

3.   In the same case

Effect of judicial admission

●  A judicial admission may not be contradicted by the party making it. As the party making such judicial admission is bound by it, he is deemed in estoppel. Therefore, a party making an admission cannot during the trial deny what has been earlier admitted nor present evidence which will run counter against the admission.

●  An admission in a pleading on which a party goes to trial is conclusive against him unless the court allows the pleader to withdraw, explain or modify it if it appears to have been made by improvidence or mistake or that no such admission was made.

How judicial admission may be contradicted

The admission may be contradicted only by showing that:

1.   it was made through palpable mistake or

2.   no such admission was made

How judicial admissions are made

1. verbally or in writing

2. expressly or impliedly

●  Judicial admissions may be verbal or those verbally made in the course of the trial or they may be written, such as those stated in a pleading. They may be express or implied, implied admissions by a defendant of material facts alleged in a complaint include

a) keeping silent on such material facts,

b) denying such material facts without setting forth the matters upon which he relies to support his denial, and

c) asserting lack of knowledge or information of the truth of the material allegations when the same is plainly and necessarily within the knowledge of defendant.

Instances of Judicial admissions

1. The genuineness and due execution of an actionable document copied or attached to a pleading, when the other party fails to specifically deny under oath (Rule 8 §8)

2. Material allegations in the complaint, when the other party fails to specifically deny it (Rule 8 §11)

3. Admissions in superseded pleadings, when offered in evidence (Rule 10 §8)

4. Act, declaration, or omission of a party as to a relevant fact (Rule 130 §26)

5. Implied admission of guilt in an offer of compromise by the accused in criminal cases, except quasi-offenses and those allowed by law to be compromised (Rule 130 §27)

6. Admission by silence (Rule 130 §32)

7. Pre-trial admission in civil cases. (Rule 18 §7)

8. Pre-trial admission in criminal cases where the admission was reduced to writing and signed by the accused and his counsel (Rule 118 §2 and 4)

Judicial admission made in another case or court

●  To be considered as a judicial admission, the same must be made in the same case in which it is offered. If made in another case or in another court, the fact of such admission must be proved as in the case of any other fact, although if it was made in a judicial proceeding, it is entitled to greater weight. (Bagsa vs. Nagramada, 11 Phil 174, In re Estate of Mijares de Fariñas, 13 Phil 63)

●  Thus, judicial admissions made in one case are admissible at the trial of another case provided they are proved and are pertinent to the issue involved in the latter, unless

a. the said admissions were made only for purposes of the first case, as in the rule on implied admissions and their effects under Rule 26

b. the same were withdrawn with the permission of the court therein

c. the court deems it proper to relieve the party therefrom. (20 Am. Jur 470 as cited in Florenz D. Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium, Volume II, 2004, page 791)

Judicial admissions vs. extrajudicial admissions

Judicial admissions are conclusive upon the party making them, while extrajudicial admissions or other admissions are, as a rule, and where the elements of estoppel are not present, disputable.

Cases

Lucido v. Calupitan, 27 Phil. 48 (1914)

Torres v. CA, 131 SCRA 24 (1984)

read more...