Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • BRIBONERIA Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Jesse Razon
    74 views2 pages
    Salvador Briboneria filed a complaint against Gertrude Mag-isa to annul a deed of sale of Briboneria's property to Mag-isa due to the sale being made without Briboneria's consent. Briboneria served a request for admission to Mag-isa regarding the facts in the complaint. Mag-isa filed her answer to the request for admission after the deadline. Briboneria claimed Mag-isa admitted the facts by not answering on time. However, the Court ruled Mag-isa did not admit the facts because the request was served to Mag-isa's lawyer, not Mag-isa directly, and the facts were already addressed in Mag-isa's answer to the complaint.

    Original Description:

    BRIBONERIA vs CA

    Original Title

    BRIBONERIA vs CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Salvador Briboneria filed a complaint against Gertrude Mag-isa to annul a deed of sale of Briboneria's property to Mag-isa due to the sale being made without Briboneria's consent. Briboneria served a request for admission to Mag-isa regarding the facts in the complaint. Mag-isa filed her answer to the request for admission after the deadline. Briboneria claimed Mag-isa admitted the facts by not answering on time. However, the Court ruled Mag-isa did not admit the facts because the request was served to Mag-isa's lawyer, not Mag-isa directly, and the facts were already addressed in Mag-isa's answer to the complaint.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    74 views2 pages

    BRIBONERIA Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Jesse Razon
    Salvador Briboneria filed a complaint against Gertrude Mag-isa to annul a deed of sale of Briboneria's property to Mag-isa due to the sale being made without Briboneria's consent. Briboneria served a request for admission to Mag-isa regarding the facts in the complaint. Mag-isa filed her answer to the request for admission after the deadline. Briboneria claimed Mag-isa admitted the facts by not answering on time. However, the Court ruled Mag-isa did not admit the facts because the request was served to Mag-isa's lawyer, not Mag-isa directly, and the facts were already addressed in Mag-isa's answer to the complaint.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    G.R. No.

    101682 December 14, 1992


    SALVADOR D. BRIBONERIA, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS,
    GERTRUDES B. MAG-ISA, married to and assisted by PEDRO MAG-ISA, respondents.

    Facts:
    Petitioner Salvador Briboneria filed a complaint for Annulment of Document and
    Damages with prayer for preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order against
    private respondent Gertrude Mag-isa, with the RTC of Pasig. The private respondent was able
    to acquire the parcel of land and the residential house owned by the petitioner through a deed of
    sale that was sold by his wife, Nonita Briboneria without his consent because of this, the
    petitioner was denied the use and enjoyment of his properties since the private respondent had
    even leased the premises to another. In due time, private respondent Mag-isa, filed her answer.
    On September 13, 1988, after issues in the case had been joined, petitioner served on the
    private respondent Mag-isa through her counsel, a request for admission. On November 10,
    1988, the private respondent files with the court a quo their answer to Request for Admission,
    alleging that most if not all the matters subject of petitioner's request for admission had been
    admitted, denied and/or clarified in their verified answer dated June 20, 1988, and that the
    matters not admitted, denied and/or clarified were either irrelevant or improper. On November
    18, 1988, petitioner filed a Motion for summary judgment, claiming that the Answer to Request
    for Admission was filed by private respondent is beyond ten day period fixed in the request and
    the answer was not under oath, that consequently the private respondents are deemed to have
    admitted the material facts and documents subject of the request for admission, pursuant to
    Section 2, Rule 26 of the Rules of Court. Hence, this petition.

    Issue:
    Whether or not private respondent Mag-isa admitted the facts and documents subject of
    the request for admission.

    Held:
    The court ruled in the negative. A cursory reading of the petitioner's complaint and his
    request for admission clearly shows, as found by respondent appellate court, that the material
    matters and documents set forth in the request for admission are the same as those set forth in
    the complaint which private respondents either admitted or denied in their answer. Under the
    rule laid down in Po vs. Court of Appeals, wherein this Court held that 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. 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 in
    and exhibited with the request or relevant matters of fact set forth therein, on account of failure
    to answer the request for admission. In the present case, the request for admission was not
    served upon the private respondent Mag-isa but upon her counsel, Atty. Alfredo Alto. Private
    respondent, 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.

    You might also like