Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 110 views

    Duque v. Spouses Yu

    Uploaded by

    Riena
    Spouses Duque owned a large property that was allegedly donated to their daughter Capacio through a forged deed of donation. Capacio then sold part of the property to Spouses Yu. Spouses Duque filed a case arguing the deed of donation was forged. During trial, Spouses Yu requested an admission of the authenticity of the deed of donation and deed of sale from Spouses Duque, who did not respond. The trial court deemed the documents admitted due to the lack of response. The Supreme Court ruled that Spouses Duque did not need to respond to the request for admission because they had already denied the authenticity of the documents in their initial complaint.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Duque v. Spouses Yu

    Uploaded by

    Riena
    110 views2 pages
    Spouses Duque owned a large property that was allegedly donated to their daughter Capacio through a forged deed of donation. Capacio then sold part of the property to Spouses Yu. Spouses Duque filed a case arguing the deed of donation was forged. During trial, Spouses Yu requested an admission of the authenticity of the deed of donation and deed of sale from Spouses Duque, who did not respond. The trial court deemed the documents admitted due to the lack of response. The Supreme Court ruled that Spouses Duque did not need to respond to the request for admission because they had already denied the authenticity of the documents in their initial complaint.

    Original Description:

    Civil Procedure - Rule 26 of the Rules of Court

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Spouses Duque owned a large property that was allegedly donated to their daughter Capacio through a forged deed of donation. Capacio then sold part of the property to Spouses Yu. Spouses Duque filed a case arguing the deed of donation was forged. During trial, Spouses Yu requested an admission of the authenticity of the deed of donation and deed of sale from Spouses Duque, who did not respond. The trial court deemed the documents admitted due to the lack of response. The Supreme Court ruled that Spouses Duque did not need to respond to the request for admission because they had already denied the authenticity of the documents in their initial complaint.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    110 views2 pages

    Duque v. Spouses Yu

    Uploaded by

    Riena
    Spouses Duque owned a large property that was allegedly donated to their daughter Capacio through a forged deed of donation. Capacio then sold part of the property to Spouses Yu. Spouses Duque filed a case arguing the deed of donation was forged. During trial, Spouses Yu requested an admission of the authenticity of the deed of donation and deed of sale from Spouses Duque, who did not respond. The trial court deemed the documents admitted due to the lack of response. The Supreme Court ruled that Spouses Duque did not need to respond to the request for admission because they had already denied the authenticity of the documents in their initial complaint.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    LILIA S. DUQUE vs. SPOUSES BARTOLOME D. YU, JR., G.R. No.

    226130, February 19, 2018

    Facts:

    Spouses Duque were the lawful owners of a 7,000-square meter lot Spouses Duque allegedly
    executed a Deed of Donation over the subject property in favor of their daughter, herein
    respondent Capacio who, in turn, sold a portion thereof to her herein co-respondents Spouses
    Yu.

    With that, Spouses Duque lodged a Verified Complaint for Declaration of Non-Existence and
    Nullity of a Deed of Donation and Deed of Absolute Sale and Cancellation of TD against the
    respondents claiming that the signature in the Deed of Donation was forged. Capacio admitted
    that the signature in the Deed of Donation was, indeed, falsified but she did not know the author
    thereof. Spouses Yu, for their part, refuted Spouses Duque's personality to question the
    genuineness of the Deed of Absolute Sale for it was their daughter who forged the Deed of
    Donation.

    A Motion for Admission was filed by respondents Spouses Yu requesting the admission of the
    Deed of Donation and Deed of Absolute Sale. Spouses Duque were directed to comment thereon
    but they failed to do so. By their silence, the trial court pronounced that they were deemed to have
    admitted the same.

    During trial, Spouses Yu moved for demurrer of evidence in view of the aforesaid pronouncement.
    Spouses Duque vehemently opposed such motion. The trial court granted the demurrer to
    evidence and, thereby, dismissed the Complaint.

    ISSUE:
    Whether petitioners' failure to reply to the request for admission is tantamount to an implied
    admission of the authenticity and genuineness of the documents subject thereof.

    RULING:

    No.

    The scope of a request for admission under Rule 26 of the Rules of Court and a party's failure to
    comply thereto are respectively detailed in Sections 1 and 2 thereof, which read:

    “SEC. 1. Request for admission. — At any time after issues have been joined, a party may file
    and serve upon any other party a written request for the admission by the latter of the genuineness
    of any material and relevant document described in and exhibited with the request or of the truth
    of any material and relevant matter of fact set forth in the request. Copies of the documents shall
    be delivered with the request unless copies have already been furnished.

    SEC. 2. Implied admission. — Each of the matters of which an admission is requested shall be
    deemed admitted unless, within a period designated in the request, which shall not be less than
    fifteen (15) days after service thereof, or within such further time as the court may allow on motion,
    the party to whom the request is directed files and serves upon the party requesting the admission
    a sworn statement either denying specifically the matters of which an admission is requested or
    setting forth in detail the reasons why he cannot truthfully either admit or deny those matters.”

    Clearly, once a party serves a request for admission as to the truth of any material and relevant
    matter of fact, the party to whom such request is served has 15 days within which to file a sworn
    statement answering it. In case of failure to do so, each of the matters of which admission is
    requested shall be deemed admitted. This rule, however, admits of an exception, that is, when
    the party to whom such request for admission is served had already controverted the matters
    subject of such request in an earlier pleading. Otherwise stated, if the matters in a request for
    admission have already been admitted or denied in previous pleadings by the requested party,
    the latter cannot be compelled to admit or deny them anew. In turn, the requesting party cannot
    reasonably expect a response to the request and, thereafter, assume or even demand the
    application of the implied admission rule in Section 2, Rule 26.

    Here, the respondents served the request for admission on the petitioners to admit the
    genuineness and authenticity of the Deed of Donation, among other documents. But as pointed
    out by petitioners, the matters and documents being requested to be admitted have already been
    denied and controverted in the previous pleading, that is, Verified Complaint for Declaration of
    Non-Existence and Nullity of a Deed of Donation and Deed of Absolute Sale and Cancellation of
    TD. Petitioners, therefore, need not reply to the request for admission.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy