CLJ 5 – CHAPTER 3 1. A matter of judicial notice may either be mandatory (Sec.

1, Rule
129, Rules of Court) or discretionary (Sec. 2, Rule 129, Rules of
Chapter III JUDICIAL NOTICE AND JUDICIAL Court). When the matter is subject to a mandatory judicial notice,
ADMISSIONS no motion or hearing is necessary for the court to take judicial
notice of such matter because it is what it says it is — "mandatory."
A. Judicial Notice
2. The following are matters subject to mandatory judicial notice:
I. The relevant provisions on judicial notice under Rule 129
provides: a) existence and territorial extent of states;
b) political history, forms of government and symbols of
"SECTION 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory. — A court shall nationality of states;
take judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of the c) law of nations;
existence and territorial extent of states, their political history, d) admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals;
forms of government and symbols of nationality, the law of nations, e) political constitution and history of the Philippines;
the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals, the f) official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial
political constitution and history of the Philippines, the official acts departments of the Philippines;
of the legislative, executive and judicial departments of the g) laws of nature;
Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure of time, and the h) measure of time;
geographical divisions. i) and geographical divisions.
SEC. 2. Judicial notice, when discretionary. — A court may take 3. It would be error for a court not to take judicial notice of an
judicial notice of matters which are of public knowledge, or are amendment to the Rules of Court. In a case, the Supreme Court
capable of unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known to declared that even if petitioners did not raise or allege the
judges because of their judicial functions. amendment of the Rules of Court in their motion for
reconsideration before it, the Court of Appeals should have taken
SEC. 3. Judicial notice, when hearing necessary. — During the mandatory judicial notice of the Supreme Court's resolution in A.M.
trial, the court, on its own initiative, or on request of a party, may No. 00-02-03-SC amending Sec. 4 of Rule 65, effective September
announce its intention to take judicial notice of any matter and 1, 2000. Under Sec. 1 of Rule 129, a court shall take judicial notice,
allow the parties to be heard thereon. among others, of the official acts not only of the legislative and
executive departments but also of the judicial department (Siena
After the trial, and before judgment or on appeal, the proper court,
Realty Corporation v. Gal-lang, 428 SCRA 422).
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 It is axiomatic that a court has the mandate to apply relevant
such matter is decisive of a material issue in the case." statutes and jurisprudence in determining whether the allegations in
a complaint establish a cause of action. While it focuses on the
2. There are matters in a litigation which must be admitted without
complaint, a court clearly cannot disregard decisions material to the
need for evidence. For example, when the complainant in a criminal
proper appreciation of the questions before it. In resolving the
case alleges that he was assaulted by the accused in Quezon City, it
motion to dismiss, the trial court should have taken cognizance of
would be ridiculous to require the prosecution to prove that a place
the official acts of the legislative, executive, and judicial
called Quezon City exists. Also, if the accused is charged with the
departments because they are proper subjects of mandatory judicial
violation of a statute, there is no need to introduce evidence that
notice as provided by Sec. 1 of Rule 129 of the Rules of Court
said at tit Lite exists because the court is charged with knowledge of
(DENR v. DENR Region 12 Employees, 409 SCRA 359).
the law, it being the product of an official act of the legislative
department of the Philippines. 4. In a case questioning the title of the University of the Philippines
to certain lots, the Court ruled that the lower courts should take
There is, likewise, no need to adduce evidence to prove that there
judicial notice of the fact that Congress and the Supreme Court have
are twenty-four (24) hours in a day or that the sun rises in the east
both officially recognized the university's indefeasible title to its
and sets in the west. The fact that Cebu lies in the Visayan region
landholdings. The official acts of the legislative, executive and
needs no further evidence. To require evidence for such obvious
judicial departments of the Philippines are matters of mandatory
facts would be totally absurd. Now, all these matters which the
judicial notice (Republic of the Philippines v. Rosario, G.R. No.
court may take cognizance of without evidence are called matters of
186635, January 27, 2016).
"judicial notice."
When judicial notice is discretionary (Bar 2012)
3. Judicial notice is based on the maxim, "what is known need not
be proved"; hence, when the rule is invoked, the court may dispense 1. Under the principle of discretionary judicial notice, "A court may
with the presentation of evidence on judicially-cognizable facts take judicial notice of matters which are of public knowledge, or are
(Thayer, Preliminary Treatise on evidence, p. 277 cited in Jones, capable of unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known to
The Law on Evidence in Civil 'times, Volume I, 3rd Ed.). judges because of their judicial functions" (Sec. 2, Rule 129, Rules
of Court).
4. The taking of judicial notice is a matter of expediency and
convenience for it fulfills the purpose that the evidence is intended 2. The principal guide in determining what facts may be assumed to
to achieve, and in this sense, it is equivalent to proof (Land Bank of be judicially-known is that of notoriety. Hence, it can be said that
the Philippines v. Yatco Agricultural X enterprises, G.R. No. judicial notice is limited to facts evidenced by public records and
172551, January 15, 2014). facts of general notoriety. Moreover, a judicially-noticed fact must
be one not subject to a reasonable dispute in that it is either: (1)
Function of judicial notice
generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court;
Judicial notice takes the place of proof and is of equal force. It or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resorting to
displaces evidence and fulfills the purpose for which the evidence is sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questionable.
designed to fulfill. Hence, it makes evidence unnecessary (Moran,
"Things of 'common knowledge,' of which courts take judicial
Comments on the Rules of Court, 1980, p. 38 citing Alzua v.
notice of, are matters coming to the knowledge of men generally in
Johnson, 21 Phil. 308). When the court takes judicial notice of a
the course of the ordinary experiences of life, or they may be
matter, the court accepts and recognizes the same without necessity
matters which are generally accepted by mankind as true and are
of formal proof. Evidence shall be dispensed with because the
capable of ready and unquestioned demonstration. Thus, facts
matter is so well known and is of common knowledge not to be
which are universally known, and which may be found in
disputable.
encyclopedias, dictionaries or other publications, are judicially
When judicial notice is mandatory noticed, provided, they are of such universal notoriety and so
generally understood that they may be regarded as forming part of
the common knowledge of every person. As the common 1. It is well-settled in our jurisdiction that our courts cannot take
knowledge of man ranges far and wide, a wide variety of particular judicial notice of foreign laws. Like any other facts, they must be
facts have been judicially noticed as being matters of common alleged and proved. Australian marital laws, for example, are not
knowledge. But a court cannot take judicial notice of any fact among those matters that judges are supposed to know by reason of
which, in part, is dependent on the existence or nonexistence of a their judicial functions (Garcia v. Garcia-Recio, 366 SCRA 437;
fact of which the court has no constructive knowledge" (Expertravel Vda. de Catalan v. Catalan-Lee, 665 SCRA 487, 496, February 8,
and Tours, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 459 SCRA 147). 2012). Thus, a party who wants to have a foreign law applied to a
dispute or case has the burden of proving the foreign law (Del
Thus, using the above standards, the mere merger of two Socorro v. Van Wilsem, G.R. No. 193707, December 10, 2014).
corporations is not of common knowledge since the element of
notoriety as basis for taking judicial notice of the merger is lacking In general, and in the absence of statutory requirement to the
(See Bank of Commerce v. Heirs of Rodolfo de la Cruz, G.R. No. contrary, the courts of the forum will not take judicial notice of the
211519, August 14, 2017). law prevailing in another country (29 Am Jur, Evidence, §116).
Foreign laws must be alleged and proved. In the absence of proof,
3. The power to take judicial notice is to be exercised by courts with the foreign law will be presumed to be the same as the laws of the
caution especially in an expropriation case which involves a vast jurisdiction hearing the case under the doctrine of processual
tract of land. Care must be taken that the requisite notoriety exists; presumption (Northwest Orient Air-lines v. Court of Appeals, 241
and every reasonable doubt on the subject should be promptly SCRA 192).
resolved in the negative. (Land Bank of the Philippines v. Wycoco,
419 SCRA 67; See Bank of Commerce v. Heirs of Rodolfo de la For instance, the Court cannot determine whether the termination of
Cruz, G.R. No. 211519, August 14, 2017). plaintiff is in accordance with Singaporean law because of the
failure to prove the applicable law of Singapore. Philippine courts
In Wycoco, the trial court, in arriving at the valuation of the land, do not take judicial notice of foreign laws. In the absence of
took judicial notice of the alleged prevailing market value of evidence of the law of the foreign country, Philippine laws should
agricultural lands in the place without apprising the parties of its be applied under the doctrine of processual presumption (Laureano
intention to take judicial notice thereof despite the requirement of a v. Court of Appeals, 324 SCRA 414).
hearing under Sec. 3, Rule 129 of the Rules on Evidence.
2. It was, however, held that where the foreign law is within the
The Supreme Court, in the same case, held that, inasmuch um the actual knowledge of the court, such as when the law is generally
valuation of the property is the very issue in the case at hnr, the trial well-known, had been ruled upon in previous maws before it, and
court should have allowed the parties to present ovidonce thereon none of the parties claim otherwise, the rt may take judicial notice
instead of practically assuming a valuation Without basis. of the foreign law (PCIB v. ierwolin, 56 SCRA 266).

Judicial notice and knowledge of the judge (Bar 1980; 2011) Judicial notice of the law of nations
1. Judicial notice may be taken of a fact which judges ought to When the foreign law refers to the law of nations, said law is
know because of their judicial functions (Sec. 2, Rule 129,Rules of subject to a mandatory judicial notice under Sec. 1 of Rule 129.
Court). But judicial notice is not judicial knowledge. The mere Under the Philippine Constitution, the Philippines adopts the
personal knowledge of the judge is not the judicial knowledge of generally-accepted principles of international law as part of the law
the court, and he is not authorized to make his individual of the land (Sec. 2, Art. II, Constitution of the Philippines). Being
knowledge of a fact, not generally or professionally known, as the parts of the law of the land, they are, therefore, technically, in the
basis of his action (State Prosecutors v. Muro, 236 SCRA 805; Land nature of local laws and, hence, mubject to a mandatory judicial
Bank of the Philippines v. Wycoco, supra; See Bank of Commerce notice under Sec. 1 of Rule I 29.
v. Heirs of Rodolfo de la Cruz, G.R. No. 211519, August 14, 2017).
Judicial notice of municipal ordinances (Bar 2005; 2011)
2. Judicial notice is not limited by the actual knowledge of the
individual judge or court. A judge must take judicial notice of a fact 1. Municipal trial courts should take judicial notice of municipal
if it is one which is the proper subject of judicial cognizance even if ordinances in force in the municipality in which they sit (U.S. v.
it is not within his personal knowledge. Consequently, a judge may Blanco, 37 Phil. 126).
not take judicial notice of a fact which he personally knows if it is
not part of the evidence or not a fact generally known within its 2. A Court of First Instance (now RTC) should also take judicial
territorial jurisdiction (2.9 Am Jur, Evidence, §35; Moore v. notice of municipal ordinances in force in the municipalities within
Dresden Investment Co., 162 Wash, 289, 298 Pac. 465, 77 A.L.R. their jurisdiction but only when so required by law. For example,
1258 cited in Jones, The Law of Evidence in Civil Cases, Vol. 1, the charter of the City of Manila requires all courts sitting therein to
§132). take judicial notice of all ordinances passed by the city council
(City of Manila v. Garcia, 19 SCRA 413). The RTC must take
Stage when judicial notice may be taken judicial notice also of municipal ordinances in cases on appeal to it
from the inferior court in which the latter took judicial notice of
The court can take judicial notice of a fact during or after trial (U.S. v. Hernandez, 31 Phil. 342; U.S. v. Blanco, supra; Moran,
pursuant to the procedure in Sec. 3 of Rule 129 of the Rules of Comments on the Rules of Court, 1980, p. 42).
Court, as follows:
3. The Court of Appeals may take judicial notice of municipal
1. Judicial notice may be taken during the trial of the case. The ordinances because nothing in the Rules prohibits it from taking
court, during the trial, may announce its intention to take judicial cognizance of an ordinance which is capable of unquestionable
notice of any matter. It may do so on its own initiative or on the demonstration (Gallego v. People, 8 SCRA 813).
request of any party and allow the parties to be heard (Sec. 3, Rule
129, Rules of Court). Judicial notice of a court's own acts and records

2. Judicial notice may also be taken by the proper court after the A court will take judicial notice of its own acts and records in the
trial, and before judgment. Judicial notice may also be taken on same case (Republic v. Court of Appeals, 277 SCRA 633).
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 No judicial notice of records of other cases; exceptions
be heard thereon if such matter is decisive of a material issue in the
case (Ibid.). 1. While courts may take judicial notice of its own acts and records
in the same case, as a rule, courts are not authorized to take judicial
Judicial notice of foreign laws; doctrine of processual notice of the contents of the records of other cases, even when such
presumption (Bar 1997; 2005; 2011) 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 (Land Bank of the
Philippines v. Yatco Agricultural Enterprises, G.R. No. 172551, No. 193047, March 3, 2014; Magsaysay Mitsui OSK Marine, Inc.
January 15, 2014). v. Bengson, 738 SCRA 184).

2. The following are the exceptions to the rule in the immediately 3. A court cannot take judicial notice of an administra-tive
preceding paragraph: (a) when, in the absence of any objection and regulation or of a statute that is not yet effective. The reason is
with the knowledge of the opposing party, the contents of said other simple. A law which is still inexistent cannot be of common
case are clearly referred to by title and number in a pending action knowledge capable of ready and unquestionable demonstration
and adopted or read into the record of the latter; or (b) when the (State Prosecutors v. Muro, 236 SCRA 505).
original record of the other case or any part of it is actually
withdrawn from the archives at the court's discretion upon the 4. MTC and MCTC judges may act as notaries public ex officio in
request, or with the consent, of the parties, and admitted as part of the notarization of documents connected only with the exercise of
the record of the pending case (Tabuena v. Court of Appeals, 196 their official functions and duties (Borre v. Mayo, Adm. Matter
SCRA 650; People v. Mendoza, 204 SCRA 288; Jumamil v. Café, 1765-CFI, 100 SCRA 314; Penera v. Dalocanog, Adm. Matter
470 SCRA 475; Calamba Steel Center, Inc. v. Commissioner of 2113-MJ, 104 SCRA 193). They may not, as notaries public ex
Internal Revenue, 457 SCRA 482). officio, undertake the preparation and acknowledgment of private
documents, contracts and other acts of conveyances which bear no
Judicial notice of proprietary acts of government-owned and direct relation to the performance of their functions as judges.
controlled corporations
However, the Court, taking judicial notice of the fact that there are
A management contract entered into by a government-owned. and still municipalities which have neither lawyers nor notaries public,
controlled corporation like that involving the Philippine Ports ruled that MTC and MCTC judges assigned to municipalities or
Authority is not among the matters which the courts can take circuits with no lawyers or notaries public may, in their capacities
judicial notice of. It cannot be considered an official act of the as notaries public ex officio, perform any act within the competency
executive department because it was entered into while performing of a regular notary public, provided that: (1) all notarial fees
a proprietary function (Asian Terminals, Inc. v. Malayan Insurance charged be for the account of the Government and turned over to
Co., Inc., 647 SCRA 111, 130-131, April 4, 2011). the municipal treasurer (Lapena, Jr. v. Marcos, 114 SCRA 572);
and (2) certification be made in the notarized documents attesting to
Judicial notice of post office practices the lack of any lawyer or notary public in such municipality or
circuit (Doughlas v. Lopez, 325 SCRA 129).
That a registered letter when posted is immediately stumped with
the date of its receipt, indicating there in the number of the registry, 5. It must be emphasized that the circumstances of minority and
both on the covering envelope itself And on the receipt delivered to relationship mentioned in the Revised Penal Code are special
the person who delivered the toiler to the office is not a proper qualifying circumstances which must be alleged in the information
subject of judicial notice. This post office practice is not covered by and duly proven by the prosecution. Here, although the minority of
any of the instances under the Rules and is not of unquestionable the victim was properly 11lleged in the information, there is
demonstration (Republic v. Court of Appeals, 107 SCRA 504). insufficient evidence of private complainant's age. The trial court
erred when it took judicial notice of private complainant's age to be
Judicial notice of banking practices fourteen. It Hhould have required competent evidence, such as her
birth certificate, as proof of the victim's actual age at the time of the
May judicial notice be taken of the practice of banks in conducting commission of the offense (People v. Metin, 403 SCRA 105
background checks on borrowers and sureties? While a court is not /2003]).
mandated to take judicial notice of this practice under Sec. 1 of
Rule 129 of the Rules of Court, It, nevertheless, may do so under 6. In this age of modern technology, the courts may take judicial
Sec. 2 of the same rule on discretionary judicial notice. Sec. 2 of notice that business transactions may be made by individuals
Rule 129 provides that a tiourt may take judicial notice of "matters through teleconferencing. Teleconferencing is interactive group
which are of public knowledge, or ought to be known to judges communication (three or more people in two or more locations)
because of their judicial functions." Thus, the Court has taken through an electronic medium. In general terms, teleconferencing
judicial notice of the practices of banks and other financial can bring people together under one roof even though they are
institutions. Precisely, it has noted that it is their uniform practice, separated by hundreds of miles. '['his type of group communication
before Approving a loan, to investigate, examine and assess would- may be used in a number of ways, and have three basic types: (1)
be borrowers' credit standing or real estate offered as security for video conferencing — television-like communication augmented
the loan applied for (Solidbank Corporation v. Mindanao Perroalloy with sound; (2) computer conferencing — printed communication
Corporation, 464 SCRA 409). through keyboard terminals; and (3) audio-conferencing — verbal
communication via the telephone with optional capacity for
Judicial notice of the financial condition of the government telewriting or telecopying. Although judicial notice may be taken of
teleconferencing as a means of making business transactions, there
Judicial notice could be taken of the fact that the government is and
is no judicial notice that one was conducted in a particular case
has for many years been financially strapped, to the point that even
(Expertravel and Tours, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 459 SCRA 147).
the most essential services have suffered serious curtailment (La
Bugal-B'laan Tribal Association v. Ramos, 445 SCRA 1). 7. It can be judicially noticed that the scene of the rape is not always
nor necessarily isolated or secluded, for lust is no respecter of time
Judicial notice of presidential powers
or place. The offense of rape can and has been committed in places
The trial court should take judicial notice of R.A. No. 6734, as where people congregate, e.g., inside a house where there are
implemented by E.O. No. 429, as legal basis of the President's occupants, a five (5)-meter room with five (5) people inside, or
power to reorganize the executive department. The official acts of even in the same room which the victim is sharing with the
the legislative, executive, and judicial departments are proper accused's sister (People v. Tundag, 342 SCRA 704).
subjects of mandatory judicial notice (DENR v. DENR Region 12
8. The trial court properly took judicial notice that Talamban, Cebu
Employees, 409 SCRA 359).
City is an urban area. Judicial notice is the cognizance of certain
Judicial notice of other matters facts which judges may properly take and act on without proof
because they already know them. A municipal jurisdiction, whether
1. Courts cannot take judicial notice of the assessed value of a realty designated as chartered city or provincial capital, is considered as
(Penta Pacific Realty Corporation v. Ley Construction and urban in its entirety if it has a population density of at least 1,000
Development Corporation, 741 SCRA 426). persons per square kilometer. The City of Cebu was created on
October 20, 1934 under Commonwealth Act 58. It is a highly
2. It is a matter of judicial notice that an overseas worker bears a urbanized city classified as entirely urban. Thus, all its barangays,
great degree of emotional strain while making an effort to perform including Talamban, are considered urban (Chiongbian-Oliva v.
his work well (Fil-Pride Shipping Company, Inc. v. Balasta, G.R. Republic, 522 SCRA 599).
9. It is of judicial notice that the judiciary is beset with the proceeding where such admission is offered. It has been held that
gargantuan task in unclogging dockets, not to mention the shortage "... To be considered as a judicial admission, the same must be
of judges occupying positions in far-flung areas. Apart from made in the same case in which it is offered" (Programme
presiding in the trial of cases, justices and judges are required to Incorporated v. Province of Bataan, 492 SCRA 529; Camitan v.
resolve the same within a prescribed period mandated by law Fidelity Insurance Corporation, 551 SCRA 540; For further
(Government Service Insurance System v. Vallar, 536 SCRA 620). readings, see Ocampo v. Ocampo, Sr., G.R. No. 227894, July 5,
2017); and
10. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that testimonies during
trial are much more exact and elaborate than those stated in sworn Third, Sec. 4 of Rule 129 does not require a particular form for an
statements, usually being incomplete and inaccurate for a variety of admission. Such form is immaterial because the provision
reasons, at times because of partial and innocent suggestions or for recognizes either a verbal or written admission.
want of specific inquiries (Estioca v. People, 556 SCRA 300). It is
of judicial notice that sworn statements are almost always 4. The stipulation of facts at the pre-trial of a case constitutes
incomplete, often inaccurate and generally inferior to the testimony judicial admissions. The veracity of judicial admissions requires no
of witness in open court (People v. Sorila, Jr., 556 SCRA 392). further proof and may be controverted only upon a clear showing
that the admissions were made through palpable mistake or that no
11. The Supreme Court has taken judicial notice of scientific admissions were made. Thus, the admissions of parties during the
findings that drug abuse can damage the mental faculties of the user pre-trial, as mil bodied in the pre-trial order, are binding and
— it is beyond question, therefore, that any employee under the conclusive upon them (Cuenco v. Talisay Tourist Sports Complex,
influence of drugs cannot possibly continue doing his duties without 569 SCRA 616). In a criminal case, admissions made by an accused
posing a serious threat to the lives and property of his co-workers during a pre-trial requires a definite form. Without complying with
and even his employer (ilughaw, Jr. v. Treasure Island Industrial the required form, such admissions will not be binding upon him.
Corporation, 550 SCRA 307). The rule requires that all agreements or admissions made or entered
during the pre-trial "shall be reduced in writing and signed by the
12. It is a matter of judicial knowledge that persons have killed or accused and counsel, otherwise they cannot be used against the
committed serious offenses for no reason at all (People v. Zeta, 549 accused" (See Sec. 2, Rule 118, Rules of Court).
SCRA 541).
5. A party may make judicial admissions in (a) the pleadings, (b)
13. If, counsel moves to another address without informing the during trial, either by verbal or written manifestations or
court of that change, such omission or neglect is inexcusable and stipulations, or (c) in other stages of the judicial proceedings
will not stay the finality of the decision. The court cannot be (Manzanila v. Waterfields Industries ('orporation, G.R. No. 177484,
expected to take judicial notice of the new address of a lawyer who July 18, 2014; Ocampo v. ()camp°, Sr., G.R. No. 227894, July 5,
has moved, or ascertain, on its own whether or not the counsel of 2017). A duly sworn affidavit, submitted as part of the evidence in a
record has been changed and who the new counsel could possibly case, stating therein that the affiant is an American citizen, is
be or where he probably resides or holds office (Karen and Khristy binding upon him as an admission against his own interest in the
Fishing Industry v. Court of Appeals, 536 SCRA 243). absence of palpable mistake. Hence, the lower court erred in ruling
that the affiant's American citizenship was not established in the
14. Notwithstanding a person's standing in the business community, case (The Heirs of Donton v. Stier, G.R. No. 216491, August 23,
the court cannot take judicial notice of said person's home address 2017).
or office after his departure from the government as a cabinet
member (Garrucho v. Court of Appeals, 448 SCRA 165). Admissions in pleadings and motions (Bar 2011)

B. Judicial Admissions It is settled that admissions made by the parties in the pleadings, or
in the course of the trial or other proceedings in the same case, are
1. Under Sec. 4 of Rule 129, judicial admissions are described and conclusive and do not require further evidence to prove them (Uy v.
defined as follows: Del Castillo, G.R. No. 223610, July 24, 201 7). This is because
admissions made in the pleadings of a party are deemed judicial
"SEC. 4. Judicial admissions. — An admission, verbal or written, admissions (Ching v. Court of Appeals, 331 SCRA 16). The
made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, admission includes those made in the complaint (Delfin v. Billones,
does not require proof. The admission may be contradicted only by 485 SCRA 38). The admissions made in a motion are judicial
showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that no such admissions which are binding on the party who made them. Such
admission was made." party is precluded from denying the same (Herrera-Felix v. Court oj
Appeals, 436 SCRA 87).
2. A judicial admission made by the parties in a plead-ing, or in the
course of the trial or other proceedings in the same case, are 1. An admission in the answer to the complaint takes on the
conclusive upon the party making the admis-sion and require no character of a judicial admission contemplated in Sec. 4, Rule 129
proof (Arcaina v. Ingram, G.R. No. 196444, February 15, 2017). of the Rules of Court. A judicial admission conclusively binds the
They are legally binding on the party making the admission party making it. He cannot thereafter contradict it. The exception is
(Eastern Shipping Lines v. BPI/MS Insurance Corporation, G.R. found only in those rare instances when the trial court, in the
No. 182864, January 12, 2015). Since the admission is legally exercise of its discretion and because of strong reasons to support
binding on the party making the admission, it cannot be its stand, may relieve a party from the consequences of his
contradicted unless previously shown to have been made through admission. A party cannot subsequently take a position contrary to,
palpable mistake or that no such admission was made (Arcaina v. or inconsistent with, his pleadings (Heirs of Pedro Clemeria v.
Ingram, G.R. No. 196444, February 15, 2017). Thus, an admission Heirs of Irene B. Bien, 501 SCRA 405).
by a party in a pleading that one is an American citizen, is binding
upon him (Heirs of Peter Donton v. Stier, G.R. No. 216491, August 2. An admission made in a pleading may be an actual admission as
23, 2017). when a party categorically admits a material allegation made by the
adverse party. An admission may, likewise, be inferred from the
3. To be a judicial admission under Sec. 4 of Rule 129, certain failure to specifically deny the material allegations in the other
elements must be considered: party's pleadings. The rules of civil procedure, for example, require
a defendant to specifically deny the material averments of the other
First, the same must be made by a party to the case. Admissions of
party. "Material averments in the complaint, other than those as to
a non-party do not fall within the definition of Sec. 4 of Rule 129;
the amount of unliquidated damages, shall be deemed admitted
Second, the admission, to be judicial, must be made in the course of when not specifically denied ..." (Sec. 11, Rule 8,Rules of Court).
the proceedings in the same case. Thus, an admission made in
3. In one case, the petitioner argued that the lower courts erred in
another judicial proceeding will not be deemed a judicial admission
admitting certain text messages he sent despite the failure of the
in another case where the admission was not made. Instead, it will
offeror to authenticate such messages. The record, however,
be considered an extrajudicial admission for purposes of the other
discloses his having admitted to have sent the text messages. The writing and signed by the accused and counsel, otherwise, they
Court ruled that, any question as to the admissibility of the cannot be used against the accused."
messages as evidence is rendered moot and academic if the party
raising such issue admits the authorship of the same (BBB v. AAA, 2. Does the above rule (requiring an admission made or entered into
G.R. No. 193225, February 9, 2015). during the pre-trial conference to be reduced in writing and signed
by the accused and his counsel before the same may be used in
4. Admissions, however, made in drafts of pleadings not yet filed evidence against the accused), equally apply to stipulation of facts
are obviously not judicial admissions because they are not parts of made during the trial?
the records of the case.
In resolving the question in the negative, the Supreme Court ruled:
Averments in pleadings which are not deemed admissions
"A stipulation of facts entered into by the prosecution and defense
There are averments in the pleadings which are not deemed counsel during trial in open court is automatically reduced in
admitted even if the adverse party fails to make a specific denial of writing and contained in the official transcript of proceedings had in
the same like immaterial allegations (Sec. 11, Rule 8, Rules of court. The conformity of the accused in the form of his signature
Court), conclusions, non-ultimate facts in the pleading (Sec. 1, Rule affixed thereto is unnecessary in view of the fact ... that an attorney
8, Rules of Court) as well as the amount of unliquidated damages who is employed to manage a party's conduct of a lawsuit ... has
(Sec. 11, Rule 8, Rules of Court). prima facie authority to make relevant admissions by pleadings, by
oral or written stipulation ... which, unless allowed to be withdrawn
Implied admissions of allegations of usury are conclusive. In fact judicial admissions are frequently those of
counsel or of the attorney of record, who is, for the purpose of the
Under Sec. 11 of Rule 8, if the complaint makes an allegation of trial, the agent of his client. When such admissions are made,... they
usury to recover usurious interest, the defendant must not only bind the client..." (People v. Hernandez, 206 SCRA 25; Silot v. De
specifically deny the same but must, likewise, do so under oath. la Rosa, 543 SCRA 533).
Failure to make the proper denial under oath would involve an
implied admission of the allegation of usury. Implied admissions in the modes of discovery (Bar 1984)

Implied admissions of actionable documents 1. Admissions obtained through depositions, written interrogatories
or requests for admission are also considered judicial admissions
1. When an action or defense is founded upon a written instrument, (Programme Incorporated v. Province of Bataan, 492 SCRA 529).
the genuineness and due execution of the same instrument shall be The filing of written interrogatories under Rule 25 and request for
deemed admitted unless the adverse party, under oath, specifically admission by adverse party under Rule 26, is mandatory in civil
denies them and sets forth what he claims to be the facts (Sec. 8, cases. Within one day from the receipt of the complaint, aside from
Rule 8, Rules of Court; Philippine National Bank v. Refrigeration the preparation of the required summons, the court shall issue an
Industries, Inc., 479 SCRA 240). order requiring the parties to avail of Rules 25 and 26 (I[A][I][.2]
A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC, July 13, 2004).
2. The failure to deny the genuineness and due execu-tion of an
actionable document does not preclude a party from arguing against 2. Under Sec. 1 of Rule 26 of the Rules of Court, a party may, at
the document by evidence of fraud, mistake, compromise, payment, any time after the issues have been joined, file and serve upon any
statute of limitations, estoppel, and want of consideration (Acabal v. other party a written request for the admission by the latter of the
Acabal, 454 SCRA 555; Phil-ippine National Bank v. Refrigeration genuineness of any material and relevant document described in and
Industries, Inc., 479 SCRA 240). He is, however, precluded from exhibited with the request. The request for admission may also be
arguing that the document is a forgery because the genuineness of of the truth of any material and relevant matter of fact set forth in
the docu-ment has been impliedly admitted by his failure to deny the request. The party to whom the request is directed must file and
the same under oath. serve, upon the party requesting the admission, a sworn statement
either denying specifically the matters of which an admission is
Admissions in the pre-trial of civil cases requested or setting forth in detail the reasons why he cannot
truthfully either admit or deny those matters. The sworn statement
1. One of the purposes of a pre-trial in a civil case is for the court to
must be filed and served within the period designated in the request
consider the possibility of obtaining stipulations or admissions of
which shall not be less than fifteen (15) days after service thereof,
facts (Sec. 2[d], Rule 18, Rules of Court). A pre-trial is mandatory
or within such further time as the court may allow on motion. If the
(Sec. 2, Rule 18, Rules of Court) and because it is mandatory, it is
sworn statement required is not filed and served, each of the matters
an important part of a civil proceeding. Admissions, therefore, in
of which an admission is requested shall be deemed admitted (Sec.
the pre-trial, as well as those made during the depositions,
2, Rule 26, Rules of Court).
interrogatories or requests for admission, are all deemed judicial
admissions because they are made in the course of the proceedings 3. Under Sec. 3 of Rule 26, any admission made pursuant to the
of the case. request for admission is for the purpose of the pending action only.
The admission shall not be considered as one for any other purpose
2. Admissions made in a stipulation of facts by the parties in the
nor may the same be used against him in any other proceeding.
pre-trial are treated as judicial admissions (Eastern Shipping Lines,
Inc. v. BPI/ MS Insurance Corpo-ration, G.R. No. 182684, January Admissions in amended pleadings (Bar 2011)
12, 2015). For instance, petitioner's admission as to the execution of
the promissory note at the pre-trial sufficed to settle the question of When a pleading is amended, the amended pleading supersedes the
the genuineness of the signatures therein. The admission, having pleading that it amends and the admissions in the superseded
been made in a stipulation of facts at pre-trial by the parties, must pleading may be received in evidence against the pleader (Sec. 8,
be treated as a judicial admission (SCC Chemicals Corporation v. Rule 10, Rules of Court).
Court of Appeals, 353 SCRA 70).
Nature of admissions in superseded pleadings
Admissions in the pre-trial of criminal cases (Bar 2008)
It has been held that the admissions in a superseded pleading are to
1. Although an admission made during the pre-trial is deemed to be considered as extrajudicial admissions which must be proven.
have been made in the course of a judicial proceeding and is The Supreme Court declared that pleadings that have been amended
necessarily a judicial admission, an admission made by the accused disappear from the record, lose their status as pleadings, and cease
in the pre-trial of a criminal case is not necessarily admissible to be judicial admissions, and to be utilized as extrajudicial
against him. To be admissible, the conditions set forth by Sec. 2 of admissions, they must, in order to have such effect, be formally
Rule 118 must be complied with. The pertinent rule provides: offered in evidence (Torres v. Court of Appeals, 131 SCRA 24;
Ching v. Court of Appeals, 331 SCRA 16).
"SEC. 2. Pre-trial agreement. — All agreements or admissions
made or entered during the pre-trial conference shall be reduced in Admissions in dismissed pleadings
Admissions made in pleadings that have been dismissed are merely 1. Sec. 4 of Rule 129 provides for either of two ways to contradict a
extrajudicial admissions (Servicewide Specialists, Inc. v. Court of judicial admission, namely:
Appeals, 257 SCRA 643).
(a) By showing that the admission was made through palpable
Sworn statement of a proposed state witness mistake; or

If the motion to discharge an accused as a state witness is denied, (b) By showing that no such admission was made.
his sworn statement, submitted to support the motion, shall be
inadmissible in evidence (Sec. 17, Rule 119, Rules of Court). The mistake that would relieve a party from the effects of his
admission is not any mistake. It must be one that is "palpable," a
Admissions by counsel mistake that is "clear to the mind or plain to see" (New Oxford
American Dictionary, 2001 Ed., p. 1232). It is a mistake that is
Admissions by a counsel are generally conclusive upon a client (De "readily perceived by the senses or the mind" (Oxford English
Garcia v. Court of Appeals, 37 SCRA 129). Even the negligence of Reference, Second Edition, Revised, 2002, p. 1049).
counsel binds the client (Sarraga v. Banco Filipino Savings &
Mortgage Bank, 393 SCRA 566). This rule is not, however, without 2. A party may also argue that he made "no such admission." This
exception. In cases where reckless or gross negligence of counsel argument may be invoked when the statement of a party is taken out
deprives the client of due process of law, or when its application of context or that his statement was made not in the sense it is made
will result in outright deprivation of the client's liberty or property, to appear by the other party. Here, the party upon whom the
or when the interests of justice so require, relief is accorded the admission is imputed does not deny making a statement. What he
client who suffered by reason of the lawyer's gross or palpable denies is the meaning attached to his statement, a meaning made to
mistake or negligence (Salazar v. Court of Appeals, 376 SCRA 459; appear by the adverse party as an admission.
Silot v. De la Rosa, 543 SCRA 533).
The Committee on the Revision of the Rules of Court explained the
Effect of judicial admissions second exception in this wise:

1. Specifically, under Sec. 4, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court, the "... if a party invokes an 'admission' by an adverse party, but cites
following are the effects of judicial admissions: the admission 'out of context,' then the one making the 'admission'
may show that he made no `such' admission, or that his admission
(a) They do not require proof; and was taken out of context. "... that the party can also show that he
made no `such admission,' i.e., not in the sense that the admission is
(b) They cannot be contradicted because they are conclusive upon made to appear.
the party making it.
That is the reason for the modifier 'such' because if the rule simply
2. Judicial admissions are legally binding on the party making the states that the admission may be contradicted by showing that 'no
admissions (Noynay v. Citihomes Builder and Development, Inc., admission was made,' the rule would not really be providing for a
735 SCRA 708). It is an established principle that judicial contradiction of the admission but just a denial" (Atillo v. Court of
admissions cannot be contradicted by the admitter who is the party Appeals, 266 SCRA 596; Sicam v. Jorge, 529 SCRA 443).
himself and binds the person who makes the same, absent any
showing that this was made through palpable mistake, no amount of
rationalization can offset it (Philippine Charter Insurance
Corporation v. Central Colleges of the Philippines, 666 SCRA 540,
553, February 22, 2012; De la Pena v. Avila, 665 SCRA 553, 567,
February 8, 2012; Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Manila
Electric Company [MERALCO], G.R. No. 181459, June 9, 2014;
Ocampo v. Ocampo, Sr., G.R. No. 227894, July 5, 2017).

A party who judicially admits a fact cannot later challenge that fact,
as judicial admissions are a waiver of proof; produc-tion of
evidence is dispensed with. A judicial admission removes the
admitted fact from the field of controversy. Consequently, an
admission made in the pleadings cannot be controverted by the
party making such admission, and is conclusive to such party, and
all proofs to the contrary or inconsistent therewith should be
ignored, whether objection is interposed or not. The allegations,
statements or admissions contained in a pleading are conclusive as
against the pleader. A party cannot subsequently take a position
contrary to or inconsistent with what was pleaded (Eastern Shipping
Lines, Inc. v. BPI/ MS Insurance Corporation, G.R. No. 182864,
January 12, 2015).

The reason for the above rulings is found under the doctrine of
estoppel. Under the doctrine, an admission or representation is
rendered conclusive upon the person making it, and cannot be
denied or disproved as against the person relying thereon
(Manzanilla v. Waterfields Industrial Corporation, G.R. No.
177484, July 18, 2014).

3. The trial court may reject evidence that a party adduces to

How judicial admissions may be contradicted