G.R. No.
101682 December 14, 1992
SALVADOR D. BRIBONERIA, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, GERTRUDES
B. MAG-ISA, married to and assisted by PEDRO MAG-ISA, respondents.
Facts:
Petitioner Salvador Briboneria (Salvador) filed a case against private respondent Gertrudes
Mag-isa (Gertrude) for an alleged sale between the latter and Salvador’s wife, which was not
authorized by the Salvador as the registered owner.
Salvador alleged facts which was replied by the Gertrude. Subsequently, Salvador served
upon respondent’s counsel a request for admission which the latter answered saying that their
answer to the first pleading of the former already provided for their admission, denial, and
clarification and that other matters in the request for admission which were not admitted, denied,
or clarified are irrelevant or improper. This answer prompted Salvador to move for a summary
judgment, on the ground that answer to the request for admission was filed more than the allotted
period for response and that consequently, respondent, through failure to specifically deny the
allegation, is deemed to have admitted the same which was also ultimately denied by the lower
and appellate court. Hence this petition.
Issue:
Whether or not the respondents impliedly admitted the material facts and documents
subject of the request for admission on account of their failure to answer the request for admission
within the period fixed therein, and for said answer not being under oath.
Ratio:
Under Po vs. Court of Appeals, a party does not need to deny allegations he already denied
in a prior pleading. Furthermore, the request for admission was not served upon the private
respondent Mag-isa, in accordance to Section 1, Rule 26 but upon her counsel, Atty. Alfredo A.
Alto. Private respondent Mag-isa, therefore, cannot be deemed to have admitted the facts and
documents subject of the request for admission for having failed to file her answer thereto within
the period fixed in the request.
Ruling:
No, a party should not be compelled to admit matters of fact already admitted by his
pleading and concerning which there is no issue, nor should he be required to make a second denial
of those already denied in his answer to the complaint. A request for admission is not intended to
merely reproduce or reiterate the allegations of the requesting party's pleading but should set forth
relevant evidentiary matters of fact, or documents described in and exhibited with the request,
whose purpose is to establish said party's cause of action or defense.
Moreover, under Section 1, Rule 26 of the Rules of Court, the request for admission must
be served directly upon the party; otherwise, the party to whom the request is directed cannot be
deemed to have admitted the genuineness of any relevant document described in and exhibited
with the request or relevant matters of fact set forth therein, on account of failure to answer the
request for admission.
