Elayda v CA

Facts: The proceedings originated from a complaint of Amelia C. Elayda against the Spouses Pedro Roxas and Leonora T. Roxas. Elayda basically sought recovery of loans extended to the defendants in the aggregate sum of P90,000.00, with interest.

The loans were secured by post-dated checks issued by the spouses and receipts signed by them purporting to show that they had received jewelry to be sold on commission. The Roxases admitted having received said loans but claimed that the loans had been paid in full and that total payments exceeded the total obligation justly and actually due from them, and they had been required to pay usurious interests.

During trial, Elayda presented her testimonial and documentary proofs in due course, 

The Roxases adduced evidence which tended to show that they had received the loans aggregating P90,000.00 on two separate occasions. They alleged that they were required to give, and did give, a "kickback" of P10,000.00 and to pay interest at the rate of 4% a month. They also claim that the total payment made by them to Elayda amounted to P112,674.00.

To counteract this evidence, Elayda tried to submit a statement prepared by her accountant to the effect that the total loan given by her to the spouses amounted to P186,000.00, not P90,000.00. She also averred that the payments made by the spouses on account thereof came up to only P110,474.00 –– of which the sum of P14,223.81 was charged to interest at 14% per annum and P96,250.19, to principal –– thus leaving a balance due from them of P89,749.81. 

The trial court ruled for the Roxases. The preponderance of evidence being clearly in favor of defendants, the complaint is dismissed and the plaintiff is condemned to reimburse and return to defendants the sum of P22,674.00, with costs against plaintiff.

The Appellate Tribunal affirmed the Trial Court's judgment in its entirety, as "being in accordance with law and the evidence."

Issue:

 Whose version of the material occurrences has been established by a preponderance of the evidence?

Held: The Roxases contention.

Elayda wants the SC to go over the proofs presented by the parties, and analyze, assess and weigh them to ascertain if the Trial Court and the Appellate Court were correct in according superior credit to this or that piece of evidence and eventually, to the totality of the evidence of one party or the other. This, the Court cannot and will not do.

Of course, the matter of whether a particular item of proof was properly admitted or rejected in light of the rules of evidence, is an issue of law. Of this character is the issue raised by Elayda in respect of the Trial Court's rejection of her accountant's statement. This issue this Court can and does now pass upon.

The Court declares the rejection to be correct. Such rejection is entirely in accord with the "familiar doctrine" that "an admission made in the pleadings 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 the party or not . . ." 

That doctrine has been embodied in the revised Rules of Court, effective on January 1, 1964, Section 2, Rule 129. Nothing in the record shows that Elayda's admissions in her complaint were indeed "made through palpable mistake."

Besides, if it be true that the total loan liability of the Roxases was not P90,000.00 only, but P186,000.00 (or P187,600.00), it is quite surprising that Elayda's evidence-in-chief, as plaintiff, was directed to proving an obligation of only P90,000.00. Even more surprising is the fact that in her complaint Elayda only alleged the sum of P90,000.00 as the indebtedness of the Roxases to her. The evidence of an indebtedness in excess of P90,000.00 would therefore appear to be a mere afterthought, difficult to accept at face value.

Also correct was the Trial Court's ruling, sustained by the Appellate Court, that Elayda's failure to deny specifically and under oath the accusation of usury set out in the Roxases' Amended Answer constituted an admission of that accusation. The ruling is entirely in accord with Section 1, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court which pertinently provides that "allegations of usury are deemed admitted if not denied specifically and under oath." The admission is a judicial admission, albeit implied, and cannot be negated "unless previously shown to have been made through palpable mistake," a showing which Elayda has not made.

CA affirmed.