Lucido vs.

Calupitan
27 Phil. 48 (1914)

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 Lucido executed a document
admitting the sale and that their real agreement was that
redemption by Lucido 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 court decided in favor of Lucido.

ISSUE:

Whether Calupitan’s original answer to the complaint may

be used as evidence against him to prove that he admitted a sale
with a right to redeem was in fact agreed to by both parties

RULING:

Yes, Calupitan’s original answer to the complaint

expressly stated that the transaction was 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 his own
attorney. The Court cited Jones on Evidence (sec. 272, 273) which
stated that although pleadings were originally considered as
inadmissible as admissions because it contained only pleader’s
matter (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.