MACARIA A.
TORRES,
vs.COURT OF APPEALSG.R. No.
L-37420 July 31, 1984MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:
Facts:
• Margarita Torres was married to Claro Santillan, and they
had two children.
• After the death of her husband, Margarita cohabited with
Leon without the benefit of marriage, and they had a child,Torres.
Subsequently, Leon and Margarita were married, and Macaria lived with and
was reared by her parents.
• Lot 551 had been leased temporarily by the Government to
Margarita who was the actual occupant of the lot. The Director of Lands issued
to Margarita a Sale Certificate over said lot, payable in 20 annual installments.
20 years before his death, Leon sold and transferred in a notarial deed his
rights and interest to the ½ portion of the lot in favor of Macaria.
• about 22 years after the death of Margarita and 20 years
after the death of Leon, Vicente Santillan executed an Affidavit claiming
possession of Lot 551 and asking for the issuance of title in his name. A
Transfer Certificate of Title was issued in the name of the legal heirs of
Margarita.
• Santillan and the children of Antonina filed a case of
forcible entry against Macaria.
• Paragraph 3 of the original complaint states:
the
plaintiffs and the defendant Macaria A. Bautista are the legal
heirs and nearest of kins of Margarita Torres, who died in Tanza, Cavite on
December 20, 1931.
• However, Santillan et. al amended the complaint, the
underlined portion was deleted so that the statement simply read:
That
the plaintiffs are the legal heirs and nearest of kin of Margarita Torres, who
died at Tanza, Cavite, on December 20, 1931.
Issue: Whether or not the original complaint should be
considered as evidence.
Held:
No. We are not persuaded. In the Amended
Complaint filed by private respondents in the same Ejectment Case, the
underlined portion was deleted so that the statement simply read:
That the
plaintiffs are the legal heirs and nearest of kin of Margarita Torres, who died
at Tanza, Cavite, on December 20, 1931.
In virtue thereof, the Amended Complaint
takes the place of the original. The latter is regarded as abandoned and ceases
to perform any further function as a pleading. The original complaint no longer
forms part of the record.
If petitioner had desired to utilize the
original complaint she should have offered it in evidence. Having been amended,
the original complaint lost its character as a judicial admission, which would
have required no proof, and became merely an extrajudicial admission, the
admissibility of which, as evidence, required its formal offer. Contrary to
petitioner's submission, therefore there can be no estoppel by extrajudicial
admission made in the original complaint, for failure to offer it in
evidence.
0 Comments