Facts:

Camitan and Damaso filed apetition for the issuance of another duplicate copy of Certificate of title
before RTC Calamba the owners duplicate copy was lost and cannot be found

This was GRANTED Register of Deeds was ordered to issue a second owners duplicate copy of the TCT
and declared hoid the frst ownerps duplicate copyu

Fidelity fled a

petition for annulment of 'ud(ment andcancellation of title

before the CAu

tit contends that it purchased the property which isthe sub'ect of the TCTu

fiidelity argues that the RTC decision is null and hoidand it had no 'urisdiction to issue the
ownerpsduplicate copy of the TCT was in their possessionu

tit claimed that the petitioners per'ured themselhesbefore the RTC when they stated that the
duplicatecopy of the TCT was lost and that they gahe notice toall who had interest in the propertyf
because theyfailed to notify fiidelity despite (nowledge of thelatterps possession of the propertyu

CA gahe due course to the petition for annulment of 'udgmentu A

preliminary conference

was set and directedfiidelity to bring the ownerps duplicate copy of the TCTu

fiidelitys counsel presented what was claimed to bethe ownerps duplicate copy of the TCTu

Camitan and Damasos counsel e)amined the copyand admitted that it was the genuine copyu

fiidelity manifested that they were no longerpresenting ehidenceu



tin their memorandumf Camitan and Damaso

retracted

theircounselps admission on the genuineness of the ownerpsduplicate copy of the TCT presented by
fiidelityf citinghonest mista(e and negligence owing to his e)citement andnerhousness in appearing
before the CAu They pointed tosome allegedly irreconcilable discrepancies between thecopy anne)ed to
the petition and the e)hibit presented byfiidelity during the preliminary conferenceu

CA ruled in fahor of fiidelity * tit declared that the RTC waswithout 'urisdiction to issue a second
ownerps duplicate copyof the title in light of the e)istence of the genuine ownerpsduplicate copy in the
possession of fiidelityf as admitted byCamitan and +ope, through counselu

According to the CAf

a 'udicial admission isconclusive upon the party ma)in( it and cannot*e contradicted unless previously
sho+n tohave *een made throu(h palpa*le mista)e orthat no such admission +as made.

tit said that

honest mistake and negligence

f as raisedby Camitan and +ope, in retracting their counselpsadmissionf are

not sugcient (rounds toinvalidate the admission.- / f N CA erred +hen it did not consider the
counsel s 'udicial admission as palpa*le mista)e 5 7f N petition 7 N- 7, in favor of
FidelityRAti- f

Camitan and +ope, argues that despite the e)istence of a 'udicial admissionf there is still some leeway
for the court toconsider other ehidence presentedu

 The case prohides a transcript of the preliminary conferencein which it was indubitably shown that
counsel forpetitioners made a 'udicial admission and failed to refutethat admission during the said
proceedings despite theopportunity to do sou

A 'udicial admission is an admission, ver*al or+ritten, made *y a party in the course of theproceedin(s in
the same case, +hich dispenses +iththe need for proof +ith respect to the matter or factadmitted. -t may
*e contradicted only *y a sho+in(that it +as made throu(h palpa*le mista)e or that nosuch admission +as
made.

CA correctly ruled that such an admission may only berefuted upon a proper showing of palpable
mista(e or thatno such admission was madeu

tihus, the claim of 9honestmista)e and ne(li(ence9 on the part of the counseldue to his e:citement and
nervousness in appearin(*efore the CA did not sugce.