Lucido vs. Calupitan27 Phil.

48 (1914)Judicial Admissions
FACTS:
The properties of Leonardo Lucido were sold on auction on Feb. 10, 1903 to Rosales
and Zolaivar. On March 30, 1903, Rosales and Zolaivar with the consent of Lucido,
sold the properties to Calupitan via a public document. On the same day, Calupitan
and Lucidoexecuted a document admitting the sale and that their real agreement
was that redemption byLucido can only be effected 3 years. from the date of the
document. Lucido tendered the redemption price to Calupitan. For failure of the
latter to surrender the properties to Lucido,this case was instituted. Calupitan
claimed that the sale was not one with a right to redeem. The lower courtdecided in
favor of Lucido.

ISSUE:Whether or not Calupitans original answer to the complaint may be used as

evidence against him to prove that a sale with a right to redeem was in fact agreed
to by both parties?

RULING:
Yes, Calupitans original answer to the complaint expressly stated that the
transactionwas one of sale with right to repurchase. The Court held that its
admission was proper,especially in view of the fact that it was signed by Calupitan
himself, who was acting as hisown attorney.The Court cited Jones on Evidence (sec.
272, 273) which stated that although pleading were originally considered as
inadmissible as admissions because it contained only pleadersmatter (fiction stated
by counsel and sanctioned by the courts), modern tendency was to treat pleadings
as statements of real issues and herein, admissions of the parties.