Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 23 views

    Sps. Binarao vs. Plus Builders, Inc

    Uploaded by

    Rean Raphaelle Gonzales
    Sps. purchased a house and lot from Plus Builders, Inc. but were later unable to make payments, prompting Builders to issue a demand and file a lawsuit. In their Answer, the Sps. admitted that they had paid 20,000 pesos, had an unpaid balance of 65,571.72 pesos, and agreed to pay the balance in three installments. However, the Sps. later denied making these statements. The court ruled that the Sps.' statements in their Answer constituted a judicial admission that could not be contradicted, as admissions in pleadings bind the party making them absent a showing of palpable mistake.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Sps. Binarao vs. Plus Builders, Inc

    Uploaded by

    Rean Raphaelle Gonzales
    23 views1 page
    Sps. purchased a house and lot from Plus Builders, Inc. but were later unable to make payments, prompting Builders to issue a demand and file a lawsuit. In their Answer, the Sps. admitted that they had paid 20,000 pesos, had an unpaid balance of 65,571.72 pesos, and agreed to pay the balance in three installments. However, the Sps. later denied making these statements. The court ruled that the Sps.' statements in their Answer constituted a judicial admission that could not be contradicted, as admissions in pleadings bind the party making them absent a showing of palpable mistake.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Binarao v Plus Builders.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Sps. purchased a house and lot from Plus Builders, Inc. but were later unable to make payments, prompting Builders to issue a demand and file a lawsuit. In their Answer, the Sps. admitted that they had paid 20,000 pesos, had an unpaid balance of 65,571.72 pesos, and agreed to pay the balance in three installments. However, the Sps. later denied making these statements. The court ruled that the Sps.' statements in their Answer constituted a judicial admission that could not be contradicted, as admissions in pleadings bind the party making them absent a showing of palpable mistake.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    23 views1 page

    Sps. Binarao vs. Plus Builders, Inc

    Uploaded by

    Rean Raphaelle Gonzales
    Sps. purchased a house and lot from Plus Builders, Inc. but were later unable to make payments, prompting Builders to issue a demand and file a lawsuit. In their Answer, the Sps. admitted that they had paid 20,000 pesos, had an unpaid balance of 65,571.72 pesos, and agreed to pay the balance in three installments. However, the Sps. later denied making these statements. The court ruled that the Sps.' statements in their Answer constituted a judicial admission that could not be contradicted, as admissions in pleadings bind the party making them absent a showing of palpable mistake.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Sps. Binarao vs.

    Plus Builders, Inc


    FACTS: Sps. purchased a house and lot from Builders. They initially paid a portion but
    was eventually unable to follow up on payments, prompting Builders to issue demand,
    and later to file an action for a sum of money. The MTC, RTC, and CA all agreed that the
    Sps., admitted in their Answer that: (a) they paid the amount of P20,000.00; (b) they still
    have a balance of P65,571.72; and (c) the unpaid balance is to be paid in three
    installments. Sps deny that they made any statements to this effect.
    ISSUE: Does the statement in question (as contained in the Answer) amount to an
    admission? – YES.
    RULING: Sps. contend that they did not agree to pay respondent P96,791.95 and that
    they did not admit in their answer they are liable to respondent. However,
    Sec.4,Rule129 recognizes that A party may make judicial admissions in pleadings, among
    others. It is well-settled that judicial admissions cannot be contradicted by the admitter
    who is the party himself and binds the person who makes the same, and absent any
    showing that this was made thru palpable mistake, no amount of rationalization can
    offset it.

    You might also like