DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioners, v.
HONORABLE
COURT OF APPEALS and ROSALINDA CANADALLA-GO, represented by
her Attorney-in-fact BENITO A. CANADALLA, Respondents.
G.R. No. 153034, September 20, 2005 DAVIDE, JR., CJ.:
“If the factual allegations in the complaint are the very same allegations
set forth in the request for admission and have already been specifically
denied or otherwise dealt with in the answer, a response to the request is no
longer required.”
FACTS:
Irene Canadalla obtained a loan of ₱100K from petitioner DBP to finance
her piggery business. As security, Canadalla mortgaged two parcels of land in
Infanta, Quezon. Canadalla procured another loan in the amount of ₱150k
which was secured by a mortgage over the same two parcels of land and a
third parcel. Canadalla failed to comply with her obligations to the DBP.
Subsequently, the DBP extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgages. The
mortgaged properties were sold at public auction to the DBP, which emerged
as the only bidder.
Canadalla was able to redeem one of the foreclosed property. As for the
other two parcels, she had 6 years as these were covered by free patent titles.
Canadalla offered to redeem the 2 parcels, but DBP declined for the price is
insufficient. Canadalla allegedly assigned her right to redeem to herein private
respondent Rosalinda Canadalla-Go. Go offered to redeem the properties, but
DBP declined advising Go that the acceptable amount is P1.8m. Go failed to
redeem, DBP consolidated its titles over the properties and new certificates
were issued in its name.
Go filed a supplemental complaint with the RTC for exercise of right of
redemption, nullification of consolidation, annulment of title with damages
and TRO. After DBP filed its answer, but before trial, Go filed a request for
Admission of Adverse party. Thereafter, DBP filed its comment. During the
hearing Go objected to the Comment reasoning that it was not under oath as
required by Sec. 2, Rule 26 RoC, and that it failed to state the reasons for the
admission or denial of matters for which an admission was requested. For its
part, the DBP manifested that, first, the statements, allegations, and
documents contained in the Request for Admission are substantially the same
as those in the Supplemental Complaint; second, they had already been either
specifically denied or admitted by the DBP in its Answer; and third, the
reasons for the denial or admission had already been specifically stated
therein.
RTC granted the motion of Go to consider as impliedly admitted the
matters sought to be admitted in the Request for Admission and all those
denied by DBP in its Comment. DBP MR is denied. DBP filed a petition for
certiorari with the CA attributing grave abuse of discretion in granting the
request of Go. CA dismissed the petition for lack of merit stating that since
DBP’s Comment was not under oath, it did not comply with Sec. 2, Rule 26
and that it failed to timely raise its objections on the ground of impropriety.
MR denied.
ISSUE: whether or not the CA is correct in dismissing the petition.
RULING:
No, the CA was not correct. as pointed out by the DBP, the matters stated
in Go’s Request for Admission are the same as those alleged in her
Supplemental Complaint. Besides, they had already been either specifically
denied or admitted in DBP’s Answer to the Supplemental Complaint. To
require the DBP to admit these matters under Rule 26 of the Rules of Court
would be pointless and superfluous.
We have held in Po v. Court of Appeals that "[a] party should not be
compelled to admit matters of fact already admitted by his pleading and … to
make a second denial of those already denied in his answer to the complaint."
The Po doctrine was brought a step further in Concrete Aggregates Co. v.
Court of Appeals, where we ruled that if the factual allegations in the
complaint are the very same allegations set forth in the request for admission
and have already been specifically denied or otherwise dealt with in the
answer, a response to the request is no longer required.
A request for admission that merely reiterates the allegations in an earlier
pleading is inappropriate under Rule 26 of the Rules of Court, which, as a
mode of discovery, contemplates of interrogatories that would clarify and tend
to shed light on the truth or falsity of the allegations in the pleading. Rule 26
does not refer to a mere reiteration of what has already been alleged in the
pleadings. Hence, the DBP did not even have to file its Comment on Go’s
Request for Admission, which merely reproduced the allegations in her
complaint. DBP’s Answer itself controverts the averments in the complaint
and those recopied in the request for admission.
That the Comment was not under oath is not a substantive, but merely a
formal, defect which can be excused in the interest of justice conformably to
the well-entrenched doctrine that all pleadings should be liberally construed
as to do substantial justice. DBP cannot be deemed to have impliedly admitted
the matters set forth in the request for the mere reason it was not under oath.
It must be stressed that the rule on admission as a mode of discovery is
intended "to expedite trial and to relieve parties of the costs of proving facts
which will not be disputed on trial and the truth of which can be ascertained
by reasonable inquiry."
