BRIBONERIA Vs CA
BRIBONERIA Vs CA
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.