ALFELOR VS.

HALASAN o RTC gravely abused its discretion in ordering the dismissal of Josefina’s
complaint-in-intervention
Facts: • Joshua and Maria Katrina filed the instant petition assailing CA ruling
• Children and heirs of late spouses Alfelor filed a complaint for partition before the
Davao RTC Issue: Whether or not the first wife of the decedent, a fact admitted by the other party
o Among the plaintiffs were Teresita Sorongon, and her two children Joshua who claims to be the second wife, should be allowed to intervene in an action for
and Maria Katrina, who claimed to be the surviving spouse of Jose Alfelor, petition involving the share of the deceased husband in the estate of his parents. –
one of the children of the deceased spouses YES
• RES Josefina Halasan filed a motion for intervention alleging:
o That she has legal interest in the case Ratio:
o That she is the SS and primary compulsory heir of Jose • To the Court’s mind, Teresita’s admission in her reply-in-intervention and her
o That she had not received a single centavo form the share of her late testimony constitute a deliberate, clear and unequivocal statement; made as it
husband was in the course of judicial proceedings, such statement qualifies as a judicial
• Josefina attached to said motion her answer in intervention claiming that she was admission
the SS of Jose • The allegations, statements or admissions contained in ta pleading are
o Thus, alleging second marriage to Teresita was void ab initio conclusive as against the pleader. A party cannot subsequently take a position
o Josefina attached to her pleading a copy of their marriage contract contrary of or inconsistent with what was pleaded
• PET opposed the motion. Judge set the motion for hearing. • On the matter of the propriety of allowing her motion for intervention:
• Josefina presented the marriage contract as well as the Reply-in-Intervention o Considering the admission of Teresita, PETs’ mother, the Court rules that
filed by the heirs of the deceased, where Teresita declared that she knew of the Josefina sufficiently established her right to intervene in the partition case
previous marriage of the late Jose with that of Josefina She has shown that she has legal interest in the matter in litigation
• Teresita testified before the RTC
o Narrated that she and the deceased were married in civil rights and
subsequently married in religious rites
o While she did not know Josefina personally, she knew that her husband has
been previously married to Josefina
• Judge Fuentes issued an Order denying the motion and dismissed her complaint,
ruling that RES was not able to prove her claim
• Josefina filed a MR
o Insisting that under Sec 4 Rule 129, an admission should not be proved
§ She pointed out that Teresita admitted in her reply-in-intervention that
she knew of Jose’s previous marriage
§ Teresita also admitted in her testimony that she knew of the previous
marriage
§ Since the existence of the first marriage was proven, in accordance with
the basic rules of evidence, the second marriage was void ab initio
• TC: denied the MR
• Josefina filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the CA
o Alleging that RTC acted with GADALEJ in declaring that she failed to prove
the fact of her marriage to Jose
• In their comment, PET claim that Teresita’s alleged admission of the first
marriage in her reply-in-intervention was mere hearsay, without probative value,
as she heard of the alleged prior marriage of decedent Jose to Josefina only from
other persons
• CA: reversed RTC ruling
o Teresita had already admitted that Josefina had been married to the
deceased, and under Sec 4 Rule 129, a judicial admission no longer
requires proof
o There was no need to prove and establish the fact that Josefina was married
to Jose