Civil Procedure Case Digest AY 13-14

CASE 031: Gardner v CA, Deogracias Natividad, Juanita Sanchez8/31/1984, GR No. L-59952TOPIC: Filing of responsive pleadings; what is responsive pleading; answer – judicial admission not binding on partyPONENTE: Melencio-Herrera

FACTS:1. The Petitioners, Spouses Gardners (Americans) entered into an agreement with the spouses Santos.2. Their agreement was to subdivide 2 lots. The Gardners executed a deed of absolute sale in favor of the Santoses.

2.1 The transfer was really “in trust.” This was for the protection of the Santoses since the Gardners obtain money from the respondents from time to time.

3. After the Santoses acquired the title, they transferred it.3.1 Santoses transferred title to the Cuencas then transferred title to the Verroyas.3.2 The Verroyas executed a mortgage over the lot.3.3 The Verroyas then transferred the title to the Natividads.

4. Upon learning of the second transfer (Santoses to Cuencas), the Gardners caused an inscription of adverse claim on the titles of the Cuencas with the ROD of Laguna.

5. Aggrieved, the Gardners filed an action with the Laguna-CFI to declare the transfers and the mortgage null, and to seek rescission and damages.5.1 In the answer of the Spouses Santos, they claimed that the sale to them was conditional in the sense that the properties were to be considered as the investment of the spouses Gardners in the subdivision venture and that in the event that this did not materialize they were to reconvey the lots to the GARDNERS upon reimbursement by the latter of all sums advanced to them; and that the deed of sale was to be registered for the protection of the SANTOSES considering the moneys that the latter would be advancing.

6. Laguna-CFI: in favor of the Gardners.7. CA: affirmed Laguna-CFI8. Natividads filed 2 successive MRs. (second one after the first was denied)9. CA: reversed previous resolution. Declared sale to Natividads as valid (in favor of Respondents)

9.1 In its Resolution reversing the original Decision, respondent Court discredited the testimony of Ariosto SANTOS for being at variance with the allegations in his Answer.

10. Hence this petition by Gardner spouses.

ISSUE:Whether or not the judicial admissions by the spouses Santos in their answer are binding on them?

HELD:No.

RATIO:1. The fact, however, that the allegations made by Ariosto SANTOS in his pleadings and in his declarations in open

Court differed will not militate against the findings herein made nor support the reversal by respondent Court.2. As a general rule, facts alleged in a party's pleading are deemed admissions of that party and binding upon it, but

this is not an absolute and inflexible rule.2.1 An Answer is a mere statement of fact which the party filing it expects to prove, but it is not evidence.2.2 As Ariosto SANTOS himself, in open Court, had repudiated the defenses he had raised in his Answer and

against his own interest, his testimony is deserving of weight and credence.2.3 Both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court believed in his credibility and we find no reason to overturn

Civil Procedure Case Digest AY 13-14

their findings thereon.

CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE:As a general rule, facts alleged in a party's pleading are deemed admissions of that party and binding upon it, but this is not an absolute and inflexible rule.

DISSENTING/CONCURRING OPINION:- None

KEYWORDS/NOTES:- None