EVIDENCE 1

What Need Not Be Proved: Judicial Admissions

TAN v. RODIL
December 18, 2006 | J. Chico-Nazario

Petitioner(s): Luciano Tan

Respondent(s): Rodil Enterprises

Doctrine: The general rule is an offer of compromise in a civil case is not an admission of liability. It is not
admissible in evidence against the offeror. The rule, however, is not iron-clad. To determine the
admissibility or non-admissibility of an offer to compromise, the circumstances of the case and the intent
of the party making the offer should be considered.

CASE SUMMARY
Trigger Word(s): Inamin na may utang siya sa renta at babayaran pa nga sana niya
FACTS: Tan was a sublesssee of Rodil Enterprises. Rodil Enterprises then filed a complaint for unlawful
detainer against Tan after the latter failed to pay rentals. The parties however entered into a compromise
agreement. In open court, Tan agreed to pay P 440,000 representing his unpaid rentals for September
1997 to June 30, 2000 to Rodil Enterprises ,and that he shall thereafter pay a monthly rental of P 13,500.
Pursuant to this, Tan moved for the MeTC to allow him to deposit a Manager’s Check of P467,500,
however this was denied by the MeTC for being in contravention with Sec. 19, Rule 70 of the 1997 Rules
of Civil Procedure. The MeTC thus rendered a decision and ordered Tan to pay his unpaid rentals and to
pay a monthly rental of P 13,500 to Rodil Enterprises. The RTC reversed the MeTC decision, finding that
the act of defendant/appellantsin the midst of pre-trial is not an admission of any liability and therefore,
should not be considered admissible evidence against him. Nevertheless, the CA reinstated the MeTC
decision finding that the agreement in open court made by the parties amounted to an admission by Tan
of the existence of the sublease and his liabilities thereunder, which admission was further bolstered by
the fact that Tan tried to deposit money to comply with the same.

HELD: The Court ruled that the CA and MeTC were correct in holding that Tan made a judicial admission
of the existence of the sublease and his liabilities. Indeed, the general rule is an offer of compromise in a
civil case is not an admission of liability. It is not admissible in evidence against the offeror. The rule,
however, is not iron-clad. To determine the admissibility or non-admissibility of an offer to compromise,
the circumstances of the case and the intent of the party making the offer should be considered. In this
case, it is clear that Tan acknowledged in open court that he had unpaid rentals and he intended to pay
the same.

FACTS
 Rodil Enterprises is a lessee of the subject premises, the Ides O’Racca Building since 1959. The
Ides O’Racca Building is owned by the Republic of the Philippines.
 On May 18, 1992, Rodil Enterprises and the Republic through the DENR entered into a Renewal
of a Contract of Lease over the building. A supplementary contract was also entered into
extedning the lease until September 1, 1997. The validity of the contracts were put into question
in a series of cases with the Office of the President (OP) declaring the same as having no force
and effect, but in the end, the validity of the same were upheld by the SC with finality in 2006. 1
 It appears that during the pendency of the preceding cases, on October 18, 1999, a subsequent
contract of lease was drawn between Rodil Enterprises and the Republic, the same to be
effective retroactively from September 1, 1997 to August 21, 2012.
 Rodil Enterprises then subleased various units of the building concerned to members of the Ides
O’Racca Building Association and among them was petitioner Luciano Tan 2.
1
The validity of these 2 renewal contracts were however put into question. In a decision on February 8, 1994 in a case between
Rodil Enterprises and tenants of the Building, the Office of the President (OP) declared the contracts of no force and effect. Rodil
Enterprises appealed the decision of the OP before the CA who dismissed the same for non-compliance w/ procedural
requirements. SC upheld the dismissal. However, in a decision in 2001, the SC effectively upheld the validity of the renewal
contracts. But, in 2004 the OP issued an order to execute its decision. Upon petition by Rodil, the CA in 2005 annulled OP’s order of
execution. The association of the Building’s tenants challenged the CA decision but the SC, on March 20, 2006, with finality, upheld
the decision of the CA.
2
Luciano’s space was “Botica Divisoria”

Orjalo | A2022
September 12, 2020
EVIDENCE 2
What Need Not Be Proved: Judicial Admissions

 On March 13, 2000, Rodil Enterprises filed a Complaint for Unlawful Detainer against Luciano
Tan before the MeTC.
o Rodil Enterprises alleged that Tan bound himself monthly rentals but unjustifiably
refused paying the same from September 1997 up to the time of filing of the complaint,
despite oral and written demands.
o Rodil Enterprises prayed that Tan be ordered to vacate the premises and pay rental in
arrears (P385k) and subsequent monthly rentals of P13,750 until Tan vacates.
 Tan prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. Tan, basing on the decision of the OP declaring the
renewal contracts ineffective, claimed that he is a legitimate tenant of the Building and not of
Rodil Enterprises, and also prayed for the return of the rentals he paid to Rodil from 1987 to
1997.
 However, on June 27, 2000, the MeTC issued an order recognizing the agreement entered into in
open court by Tan and Rodil Enterprises. It was stated in the Order:

On second call, the parties and counsel agreed in principle in open court to the
following terms to put an end to this civil case for ejectment between them:

1.) that [Luciano Tan] will pay P440,000.00 representing rentals from September,
1997 up to the present, which is the outstanding obligation of [Luciano Tan] as of
June, 2000, on or before June 30, 2000; and

2.) [Luciano Tan] will pay the monthly rentals computed at P13,750.00 on or before
the 5th day of each month after June 30, 2000.

 Following this, Tan filed a Motion to Allow Defendant to Deposit Rentals wherein he stated
that he would like to deposit Manager’s Check of P467,500 payable to the City Treasurer of
Manila as payment. Although, this Motion was denied by the MeTC as it contravenes Sec. 19,
Rule 70 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
 On October 6, 2000, the MeTC rendered a decision favoring Rodil Enterprises and ordering Tan
to pay the rentals from September 1997 to June 30, 2000 (P440k) and monthly rental of P 13,750
thereafter. (Tan’s counterclaim was dismissed for lack of merit.)
o The MeTC found that Tan did not contest the sublease and in fact admitted the same in
light of the agreement done by the parties in open court on June 27, 2000.
o Notwithstanding the evidentiary norm in civil cases that an offer of compromise is not an
admission of any liability, and is not admissible in evidence against the offeror, the court
cannot overlook the frank representations by Luciano Tan’s counsel of the former’s
liability in the form of rentals, coupled with a proposal to liquidate.
 Tan appealed the MeTC decision to the RTC w/c then reversed the MeTC’s decision. According
to the RTC, the MeTC erred in holding that the offer to compromise by Luciano Tan’s counsel
was akin to an admission of fact, the same being contrary to Section 27, Rule 130 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure.
o The act of defendant/appellant’s (sic) in the midst of pre-trial is not an admission of any
liability and therefore, should not be considered admissible evidence against him.
 The RTC also held that Tan’s prayer for recovery of rentals he paid to Rodil is still premature as
the right of Rodil to collect rentals and eject Tan based on the contracts of renewal between Rodil
and the Republic are still pending before the SC (at the time).
 Rodil Enterprises elevated the case to the CA which then reinstated the MeTC decision, finding
that :
o There was in fact a valid existing contract of lease between Rodil Enterprises and the
Republic entered into on October 18, 1999, a contract different from the renewal
contracts being questioned before the SC, which was never controverted by Tan.
o The CA agreed that Tan made an implied admission of the existence of the sublease and
failure to pay rentals, bolstered also by the fact that Tan tried to deposit payment for the
same.

Orjalo | A2022
September 12, 2020
EVIDENCE 3
What Need Not Be Proved: Judicial Admissions

ISSUE #1: W/N Tan admitted the existence of the sublease and his failure to comply with his
obligations therein – YES
 Petitioner posits that the aforesaid admission, made in open court, and then, reiterated in his
Motion to Allow Defendant to Deposit Rentals, cannot be taken as an admission of his liability,
citing Section 27, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, which states, inter alia, that an offer of
compromise in a civil case is not a tacit admission of liability.

 The general rule is an offer of compromise in a civil case is not an admission of liability. It is not
admissible in evidence against the offeror. The rule, however, is not iron-clad.

o Trans-Pacific Industrial Supplies, Inc. v. Court of Appeals: To determine the

admissibility or non-admissibility of an offer to compromise, the circumstances of
the case and the intent of the party making the offer should be considered. X x x If
in the course thereof, the party making the offer admits the existence of an indebtedness
combined with a proposal to settle the claim amicably, then, the admission is admissible
to prove such indebtedness.

 In this case, the MeTC and the Court of Appeals properly appreciated petitioner’s admission as
an exception to the general rule of inadmissibility.

o As found by the MeTC, indeed, Tan failed to contest the existence of the sublease and
admitted liability in the form of rentals, and this was bolstered further by Tan’s Motion to
Allow Defendant to Deposit Rentals. Not only did Tan admitted his liability, he even
admitted its amount. Tan agreed in open court that he would pay P440k for his unpaid
rentals, and to pay P 13,750 as monthly rental thereafter.

 Petitioner cannot now be allowed to reject the same. An admission made in the
pleading cannot be controverted by the party making such admission and are
conclusive as to him, and that all proofs submitted by him contrary thereto or
inconsistent therewith should be ignored whether objection is interposed by a
party or not. A judicial admission is an admission made by a party in the course
of the proceedings in the same case, for purposes of the truth of some alleged
fact, which said party cannot thereafter disprove.

 Also, the Court agreed that the existence of the Contract of Lease between Rodil Enterprises and
the Republic dated October 18, 1999 was never questioned by Tan (this upholds Rodil
Enterprises’ right to collect rentals and justifies denial of Tan’s counterclaim).

RULING: One sentence ruling of the case

Orjalo | A2022
September 12, 2020