8/10/2019 Evidence Case Digest -Roz Camacho
1/3
THERESITA, JUAN, ASUNCION, PATROCINIA, RICARDO, and GLORIA, all
surnamed DIMAGUILA
vs. JOSE and SONIA A. MONTEIRO, G.R. No. 201011, January 27,
2014
Facts:
On July 5, 1993, respondent spouses, Jose and Sonia Monteiro,
along with Jose,Gerasmo, Elisa and Clarita Nobleza filed a
Complaint for Partition and Damages before the RTC
against the Dimaguilas, together with the Borlazas, alleging
that the parties were co-owners
and prayed for the partition of a residential house and lot in
Laguna covered by Tax Declaration
No. 1453. The Monteiros anchored their claim on a Deed of Sale
executed in their favor by the
heirs of Pedro Dimaguila.
The Dimaguilas argued that there was no co-ownership at all
since the property had
long been partitioned to Perfecto and Vitaliano Dimaguila, with
Perfecto becoming owner of
the southern half and Vitaliano owning the northern half. The
defendants claim that they are
Vitalianos heirs and further averred that the Monteiros claim to
the property is null for they
were not heirs of either Perfecto or Vitaliano.
Petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari before the CA
assailing the RTCs orders which
denied several of their motions and the proceedings were
suspended while such petition was
pending. The CA upheld the RTCs orders and, upon resumption of
the proceedings, the spouses
Monteiro filed their Motion for Leave to Amend and/or Admit
Amended Complaint which was
granted by the RTC.
The Monteiros admitted in the amended complaint the defendants
allegation of a
partition and aver that a third of Perfectos share was sold to
them through a Bilihan; and
that, upon their attempt to take possession of that portion,
they found that the Dimaguilas
were occupying it.
The Dimaguilas, in their answer to the amended complaint now
contravened their
original answer that the subject property was actually divided
into northern and southern
halves, replacing it with a division into two and share and
share alike. This resulted to an
admission of a co-ownership, contrary to their original
position. According to the Dimaguilas,
the Bilihan also violated Article 1485 of the Civil Code for not
specifying the metes and
bounds of the property sold and that, even if it was specified,
the sale was still void since a co-
owner can only sell his undivided share in the property.
The RTC ruled in favor of Spouses Monteiro after perusing
evidence aliunde of a
cadastral map of Liliw, Laguna and a corresponding list of
claimant as to show that the propertyhad indeed been partitioned
into southern and northern portions. The RTC concluded that the
Dimaguilas were stopped from denying this partition and the
Bilihan document was regular
and authentic absent any evidence to the contrary.
The Dimaguilas appealed their case to the CA which affirmed the
trial courts decision. A
motion for reconsideration was subsequently filed by the
petitioners but it was denied, hence,
this appeal under Rule 45.
8/10/2019 Evidence Case Digest -Roz Camacho
2/3
Issues:
1) Whether there was a partition of the subject property;
and
2) Whether the 1/3 portion of the southern half of the subject
property was sold to the
respondent spouses.
Ruling:
The petition is DENIED. Both aforementioned issues are answered
in the affirmative.
The Supreme Court points out that to determine whether there was
a partition and a
sale of the 1/3 portion of the property requires an evaluation
of the evidence. This entails a
question of fact which is beyond the ambit of Rule 45 upon which
this petition is based. On this
ground alone, the petition could be denied. However, the Supreme
Court delved into the
concepts of evidence to put the case to rest.
Preponderance of evidence; definition
Spouses Monteiro, as plaintiffs in the original case, had the
burden of proof to establish
their case by a preponderance of evidence, which is the weight,
credit, and value of the
aggregate evidence on either side, synonymous with the term
greater weight of the evidence.
Preponderance of evidence is evidence which is more convincing
to the court as worthy of
belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto.
Admissions; contradiction
Section 4 of Rule 129 of the Rules of Court provides that an
admission made by a party
in the course of the proceedings in the same case does not
require proof, and may be
contradicted only by showing that it was made through palpable
mistake. The petitioners arguethat such admission was the palpable
mistake of their former counsel in his rush to file the
answer, a copy of which was not provided to them. This
contention is unacceptable. It is a
purely self-serving claim unsupported by any iota of evidence.
Bare allegations, unsubstantiated
by evidence, are not equivalent to proof.
Admissions; rendered conclusive through estoppels
Article 1431 of the Civil Code provides that through estoppel,
an admission is rendered
conclusive upon the person making it, and cannot be denied or
disproved as against the person
relying thereon. The respondent spouses had clearly relied on
the petitioners admission and so
amended their original complaint for partition to one for
recovery of possession of a portion ofthe subject property. Thus,
the petitioners are now estopped from denying or attempting to
prove that there was no partition of the property. Considering
that an admission does not
require proof, the admission of the petitioners would actually
be sufficient to prove the
partition even without the documents presented by the respondent
spouses. If anything, the
additional evidence they presented only served to corroborate
the petitioners admission.
