Torres vs.

Court of Appeals
11 SCRA 24 (1984)

FACTS:

This is a Petition for Review, treated as a special civil

action praying that the decision of the CA be set aside. Lot no.
551 was originally owned by Margarita Torres. Margarita was married
to Claro Santillan and out of this union were begotten Vicente
and Antonina. Claro died. Antonina married and had six
children, who, together with Vicente are the private
respondents. After Claro’sdeath, Margarita cohabited with
Leon Arbole, and out of this, petitioner Macaria Torres was
born. Lot no. 551, an urban lot, was leased to Margarita, who
was the actual occupant of the lot. A Sale Certificate was
issued to Margarita by the Director of Lands. The purchase
price was to be paid in installments. According to testimonial
evidence, Leon paid the installments out of his
own earnings. Before his death, Leon sold and transferred all his
rights to ½ portion of the lot in favor of petitioner
Macaria. Subsequently, Vicente executed an Affidavit
claiming possession of Lot no. 551 and petitioned the
Bureau of Lands for the issuance of title in his name. A title was
then issued in the name of the legal heirs of Margarita (private
respondents).On June 3, 1954, respondents filed a complaint
against petitioner for forcible entry alleging that petitioner entered
a portion of Lot no. 551 without their consent and constructed a
house therein. The case was decided against the petitioner. On June
8, 1954, petitioner instituted an action for Partition of Lot. N0.
551 alleging that said lot was conjugal property and the she is the
legitimated child of Margarita and Leon. The ejectment case and the
partition case was consolidated.
T h e t r i al c o u r t r u l e d t h at t h e l o t w as p a r ap h e r n al p r
o p e r t y o f M ar a g a r i t a a n d adjudicated 2/3 of the lot to
respondents and 1/3 to petitioner Macaria. On Motion
for Reconsideration, the decision was amended with Macaria
being entitled to 4/6 of the lot. On appeal to the CA, the CA
changed Macaria’s share to ½ of the lot and declared that she is not a
legitimated child. Petitioner now alleges that although the
CA is correct in declaring that she is not a legitimated
child of the spouses, it has overlooked to include in its
findings of facts the admission made by the respondents that
she and Vicente and Antonina are brothers and sisters and they are
the legal heirs and nearest of relatives of Maragarita. The
admission adverted toappears in paragraph 3 of respondents’
original complaint in the Ejectment Case, which was however
subsequently amended.

ISSUE:

Whether said statement in the original complaint must be

treated as a judicial
a d m i ss i o n d e s p i t e t h e fa c t t h a t t h e s am e s t at e m e n
t s n o l o n g e r ap p e ar s i n t h e a m e n d e d complaint

RULING:

No, in the Amended Complaint filed by respondents in the

same ejectment case, the supposed admission was deleted
and in fact the statement simply read, “That plaintiffs are the
legal heirs and nearest of kin of Margarita.” By virtue thereof,
the amended complaint takes the place of the original. The latter is
regarded as abandoned and ceases to perform any further function as
a pleading. The original complaint no longer forms part of the record.
If petitioner had intended to utilize the original complaint, she should
have offered it in evidence. Having been amended,
the original complaint lost its character as a judicial
admission, which would have required no proof, and became merely
an extrajudicial admission of which as evidence, required its formal
offer. Contrary to petitioner’s submission, therefore, there can be no
estoppel by extrajudicial admission in the original complaint,
for the failure to offer it in evidence.