You are on page 1of 5

Sps Villuga et al vs Kelly

G.R. No. 176570

July 18, 2012

INC., represented by ERNESTO V. YU, Executive Vice-President
and General Manager.

Topic: Rule 35; Complaint for a Sum of Money and Damages;
Request for Admission;

- Not because there was an admission but because there was
no genuine issue.


On March 3, 1995, herein plaintiff filed with the RTC of Bacoor,
Cavite a Complaint for a Sum of Money and Damages against
herein defendants alleging that the latter failed and refused to pay
for the construction materials they bought from the plaintiff despite
of several oral and written demands.

Defendants, in their answer, admitted having made purchases
from plaintiff, but alleged that they do not remember the exact
amount thereof as no copy of the documents evidencing the
purchases were attached to the complaint.

Defendants, nonetheless, claimed that they have made payments
to the plaintiff in the amounts of P110,301.80 and P20,000.00,
respectively, and they are willing to pay the balance of their
indebtedness after deducting the payments made and after
verification of their account.

809. Subsequently. plaintiff prayed that it be awarded the remaining balance of P129. as well as litigation expenses and attorney's fees.50 when they claimed that they made partial payments amounting to P130. the aggregate value of which is P279.70. alleging that defendants purchased from it various construction materials and supplies.507. In their Answer to Amended Complaint. delivery receipts. invoices and demand letter attached thereto as well as the truth of the allegations set forth therein. However.301. signified that it was amenable to defendants’ offer to pay the principal amount of P259. in its counter manifestation. plaintiff filed a Request for Admission asking that defendants admit the genuineness of various documents.Plaintiff. plaintiff filed a Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings contending that defendants were deemed to have admitted in their Answer that they owed plaintiff the amount of P259.809.00 had been paid leaving a balance of P259.000.50.80. such as statements of accounts. the RTC issued an Order deferring resolution of Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Judgment on the ground that there is no clear and specific admission on the part of defendants as to the actual amount that they owe plaintiff. . Defendants filed their Opposition to the said Motion. plaintiff insisted that defendants should also pay interests.50. defendants reiterated their allegations in their Answer to Complaint. that only P20. Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. with leave of court. and all incidental expenses.50. Based on this premise.809.809.

again with leave of court. they be considered to have admitted the genuineness of the documents described in and exhibited with the said Request as well as the truth of the matters of fact set forth therein. The amendment modified the period covered by the complaint. despite defendants partial payment.plaintiff basically asked defendants to admit that the latter's principal obligation is P279. plaintiff filed its Second Amended Complaint. defendants filed an appeal with the CA.301. .80 but alleged that this payment was applied to other obligations which defendants owe plaintiff. the principal amount which defendant owe remains P259. plaintiff reiterated its allegation that.00 was paid.50.809. but it was denied by the RTC. The CA affirmed the Orders of the RTC. Unyielding.000. Defendants filed their Answer to the Second Amended Complaint denying the allegations therein and insisting that they have made partial payments.809. defendants filed a Manifestation and Motion before the RTC praying that since defendants failed to timely file their comment to the Request for Admission. defendants filed their Comments on the Request for Admission stating their objections to the admission of the documents attached to the Request. defendants filed a Motion for Reconsideration. in accordance with the Rules of Court. The amendment also confirmed defendant’s partial payment in the sum of P110.50 and that only P20. Plaintiff filed a Motion to Expunge with Motion for Summary Judgment which was thereafter granted by the trial court.

50 being sought in the complaint.Defendants Motion for Reconsideration was subsequently denied by the CA. they simply insisted on their defense of partial payment while claiming lack of knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of plaintiff’s allegation . A careful examination of the said Request for Admission shows that the matters of fact set forth therein are simply a reiteration of plaintiff’s main allegation in its Amended Complaint and that defendants had already set up the affirmative defense of partial payment with respect to the above allegation in their previous pleadings. The foregoing notwithstanding. when plaintiff subsequently filed its Second Amended Complaint admitting therein that defendants.809.000. Nonetheless. This allegation was not refuted by defendants in their Answer to Second Amended Complaint.80 and P20. plaintiff accounted for such payments by alleging that these were applied to defendant’s obligations which are separate and distinct from the sum of P259. indeed. the Court finds that the CA was correct in sustaining the summary judgment rendered by the RTC. the required party cannot be compelled to deny them anew. WON there was an implied admission by the defendant. Ruling: None.301. Rather. made partial payments of P110.00. Issue: 1. This Court has 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.

80 and P20. defendants could have easily asserted that their payments of P110.80 and P20.00 were applied to. but they did not. Hence. Such judgment is generally based on the facts proven summarily by affidavits. Instead of denying knowledge. does not apply where the fact as to which want of knowledge is asserted. in effect.50 despite their payments of P110.that they still owe the amount of P259. It is settled that the rule authorizing an answer to the effect that the defendant has no knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of an averment and giving such answer the effect of a denial.809. the sum sought to be recovered by plaintiff. defendant’s defense of partial payment in their Answer to Second Amended Complaint. the summary judgment of the RTC in favor of plaintiff is proper. or admissions of the parties.50. Doctrines: Summary judgment is a procedural device resorted to in order to avoid long drawn out litigations and useless delays. and should have been deducted from. pleadings.000. On the basis of the foregoing. depositions.000. . is so plainly and necessarily within the defendant’s knowledge that his averment of ignorance must be palpably untrue. it is difficult to believe that defendants do not know how their payment was applied. leading the court to no other conclusion than that these payments were indeed applied to their other debts to plaintiff leaving an outstanding obligation of P259. no longer raised genuine issues of fact that require presentation of evidence in a full-blown trial.301. In the instant case.00.301.809.