Scribd
Upload
97 views

Republic of The Philippines vs. Kenrick Development Corporation

This document discusses a case between the Republic of the Philippines and Kenrick Development Corporation regarding ownership of land. The key events were: 1) Kenrick Development filed an answer purportedly signed by their lawyer, Atty. Garlitos, but he later testified he did not authorize anyone to sign for him. 2) Based on this, the Republic filed to have Kenrick Development declared in default for failing to file a valid answer. The trial court agreed. 3) The Court of Appeals reversed, finding Kenrick Development had adopted the statements of their lawyer as their own through their actions, making his statements an "adoptive admission" that was binding on Kenrick Development.

Uploaded by

AlexPamintuanAbitan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
97 views

Republic of The Philippines vs. Kenrick Development Corporation

This document discusses a case between the Republic of the Philippines and Kenrick Development Corporation regarding ownership of land. The key events were: 1) Kenrick Development filed an answer purportedly signed by their lawyer, Atty. Garlitos, but he later testified he did not authorize anyone to sign for him. 2) Based on this, the Republic filed to have Kenrick Development declared in default for failing to file a valid answer. The trial court agreed. 3) The Court of Appeals reversed, finding Kenrick Development had adopted the statements of their lawyer as their own through their actions, making his statements an "adoptive admission" that was binding on Kenrick Development.

Uploaded by

AlexPamintuanAbitan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES DEVELOPMENT’s former counsel. He testified that he prepared


vs. KENRICK DEVELOPMENT’s answer and transmitted an unsigned
KENRICK DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION draft to KENRICK DEVELOPMENT’s president, Mr. Victor Ong.
August 8, 2006 G.R. No. 149576 The signature appearing above his name was not his. He authorized no
one to sign in his behalf either. And he did not know who finally
signed it.

FACTS: With Atty. Garlitos’ revelation, the Republic promptly filed an


urgent motion on December 3, 1998 to declare KENRICK
DEVELOPMENT in default, predicated on its failure to file a valid
answer. The Republic argued that, since the person who signed the
This case stemmed from the construction by KENRICK answer was neither authorized by Atty. Garlitos nor even known to
DEVELOPMENT. Kenrick Development Corporation of a concrete him, the answer was effectively an unsigned pleading. Pursuant to
perimeter fence around some parcels of land located behind the Civil Section 3, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, it was a mere scrap of paper
Aviation Training Center of the Air Transportation Office (ATO). and produced no legal effect.
Parcels of land were allegedly registered in the name of Alfonso
Concepcion. As a result, the ATO was dispossessed of some 30,228 RTC: Granted Republic’s motion, declared defendant in default,
square meters of prime land. KENRICK DEVELOPMENT justified allowed Republic to present evidence ex parte. It found KENRICK
its action with a claim of ownership over the property. DEVELOPMENT’s answer to be sham and false and intended to
defeat the purpose of the rules.
The Solicitor General filed a complaint for revocation,
annulment and cancellation of certificates of title in behalf of the Motion for Reconsideration by KENRICK DEVELOPMENT :
Republic of the Philippines (as represented by the LRA) against Denied. Petition for certiorari.
KENRICK DEVELOPMENT and Alfonso Concepcion.
CA: Reversed RTC
On December 5, 1996, KENRICK DEVELOPMENT filed its
answer which was purportedly signed by Atty. Onofre Garlitos, Jr. as ISSUE:
counsel for KENRICK DEVELOPMENT. Since Alfonso Concepcion
could not be located and served with summons, the trial court ordered Whether or not the Court of Appeals err in reversing the
the issuance of an alias summons by publication against him on trial courts order which declared respondent in default for its failure to
February 19, 1997. file a valid answer?

The case was thereafter punctuated by various incidents relative to RULING:


modes of discovery, pre-trial, postponements or continuances, motions
to dismiss, motions to declare defendants in default and other Yes, it did.
procedural matters.
A party may, by his words or conduct, voluntarily adopt or
During the congressional hearing held on November 26, 1998, one ratify anothers statement. Where it appears that a party clearly and
of those summoned was Atty. Garlitos, KENRICK unambiguously assented to or adopted the statements of another,
ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS
evidence of those statements is admissible against him. This is the
essence of the principle of adoptive admission.

An adoptive admission is a party’s reaction to a statement or


action by another person when it is reasonable to treat the party’s
reaction as an admission of something stated or implied by the other
person. By adoptive admission, a third person’s statement becomes the
admission of the party embracing or espousing it. Adoptive admission
may occur when a party:

(a) expressly agrees to or concurs in an oral statement made by


another;

(b) hears a statement and later on essentially repeats it;

(c) utters an acceptance or builds upon the assertion of another;

(d) replies by way of rebuttal to some specific points raised by


another but ignores further points which he or she has
heard the other make or

(e) reads and signs a written statement made by another.

Here, respondent accepted the pronouncements of Atty.


Garlitos and built its case on them. At no instance did it ever deny or
contradict its former counsels statements. Evidently, respondent
completely adopted Atty. Garlitos statements as its own. Respondents
adoptive admission constituted a judicial admission which was
conclusive on it.

You might also like