Rule 26 - Admission by Adverse Party

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 copy 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 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
Objections to any request shall be submitted to the court by the party requested
within the period and prior to the filing of his sworn statement as contemplated in the
preceding paragraph and his compliance therewith shall be deferred until such
objections are resolved, which resolution shall be made as early as practicable

Sec 3 - Effect of admission

Any admission made by a party pursuant to such request is for the purpose of
the pending action only and shall not constitute an admission by him for any other
purpose nor may the same be used against him in any other proceeding

Sec 4 - Withdrawal
The court may allow the party, making an admission under the Rule, whether
express or implied, to withdraw or amend it upon such terms as may be just

Sec 5 - Effect of failure to file and serve request for admission

Unless otherwise allowed by the court for good cause shown or, to prevent a
failure of justice, party who fails to file and serve a request for admission on the adverse
party of material and relevant facts at issue which are, or ought to be, within the
personal knowledge of the latter, shall not be permitted to present evidence on such
facts

Jurisprudential issues in relation to Rule 26

● Whether or not the matters requested to be admitted under Rule 26 may be
deemed impliedly admitted on the ground that the response thereto is not under
oath
○ Development Bank of the Phil v CA
● Whether or not the request for admission of a decision on appeal was made
premature
○ Adolfo v Adolfo GR 201427
● Whether or not the sworn answer in response to the request for admission
should be personally answered by the parties themselves and not through
counsel
○ Lanada v CA GR nos. 102390 and 102404
● Whether or not the failure to file a sworn answer would yield to an implied
admission of the facts to be used for summary judgement
○ Allied Agri-Business v CA Gr 118438
● Whether or not the request for admission is proper when such request was
served through counsel
○ Brinoneria v CA 101682
● Whether or not the Request for Admission should have been granted even if the
allegations set forth are materially the same with the allegations stated in the
complaint
○ Sime Darby v NLRC GR 148021
● Whether or not the Request for Admission should have been granted even if the
matters set forth in petitioners' Request for Admission were the same affirmative
defenses pleaded in their Answer which respondents already traversed in their
Reply
○ Limos v Sps Odones Gr. 186979
● Whether or not the material facts in the Request for Admission shall be deemed
admitted due to respondent’s failure to deny the same
○ Manzano vs. Despabiladeras G.R. No. 148786
Development Bank of the Phil v CA

Irene obtained a loan from DBP for the purposes of financing her piggery
business, as a security, she executed a real estate mortgage over 3 parcels of land. For
failure to comply with her obligations with DBP, DBP executed an extrajudicial
foreclosure for the properties in which DBP was the only winner. Irene was able to
redeem one of the properties and offered to buy the other but DBP refused and
countered with a higher price.
Irene then assigned her right to redeem her property to her daughter, Rosalinda
Go. Go offered to redeem the property for P526 882 but DBP stated that the purchase
price is P1,814,700. She was not able to redeem the property and thus DBP
consolidated the titles under its name

Go filed with the RTC of Makati a complaint for the nullification of the
consolidation of the titles. After DBP filed its answer, but before trial, Go requested for
admission by the adverse party; to which, DBP filed its comment. Go then objected to
the comment stating that such is not under oath as required by Sec 2 Rule 26; and that
it failed to state the reasons for the admission or denial of matter for which and
admission was requested.
DBP manifested that the statements, allegations, and documents contained in
the request for admission are substantially the same as those in the supplemental
complaint. They had already been either specifically denied or admitted by the DBP in
its answer or The reasons for the denial or admission had already been specifically
stated therein
RTC issued an order granting the motion of Go to consider as impliedly admitted
the matters sought to be admitted in the Request for Admission and all those denied by
the DBP in its comment. DBP filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied thus
DBP filed with the CA a petition for certiorari

Whether or not the matters requested to be admitted under Rule 26 may be

deemed impliedly admitted on the ground that the response thereto is not under
oath

SC ruled in the affirmative

The matters stated in Go’s Request for Admission are the same as those alleged
in her complaint, to require DBP to admit these matters under Rule 26 of ROC would be
pointless and superfluous. The ruling in Concrete Aggregates Co v Ca states 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 or otherwise dealt with in the
answer, a response to the request is no longer required
Moreover, some of the matters sought to be admitted in the request for
admission were matters of law or opinions. Under Sec 1 Rule 26, the scope of matters
that a party may request the adversary to admit are (1) the genuineness of any material
and relevant document described in the exhibit with the request, and (2) The truth of
any material and relevant matter of fact set forth in the request.
The rule authorizing a party to call on the other party to make an admission
implies the making of demands for admission of relevant matters of fact and not for
admission of matters of law, conclusions, or opinions

Adolfo v Adolfo GR 201427

Petitioner Adolfo filed with the RTC of Mandaue a Petition for Judicial separation
of property against his estranged wife, respondent Fe Adolfo. Respondent claimed that
one of the properties subject to the separation proceedings is her sole ownership since
the same is her paraphernal property which she alone acquired. She claims that the
subject lot is transferred to her by her mother and the same was sold to spouses
Garcia. She then redeemed the property from Garcias
The Gingoyons filed a case for partition with damages against respondent Go.
The complaint alleges that the property was sold to them by Go but the same was not
delivered even after the purchase price was paid. For her defense, Go claimed that
when the sale was made, her husband did not sign the deed of sale thus making the
sale null and void since the subject property is part of the conjugal property. Trial court
rendered a decision, declaring that the subject property is part of the conjugal property
of the marriage

During the pre-trial conference for the case of petitioner, petitioner submitted as
part of his evidence the decision, complaint, and answer in the case filed by the
Gingoyons. Petitioner then filed a request for admission for the submitted evidence.
Respondent failed to file her answer and petitioner filed a motion for judgment based on
the pleadings stating that the respondent failed to answer the request for admission
thus the matters contained in the request are deemed admitted pursuant to Rule 26;
and that on account of said admission, a hearing on the merits becomes unnecessary
and instead Rule 34 of ROC on judgments on the pleadings should apply
Respondent filed an opposition arguing that the request for admission was
premature considering that the decision in Gingoyons’ case was the subject of an
appeal, and this is not yet final. However, RTC granted the motion for judgment on the
pleadings which prompted respondent to institute an appeal with the CA
 CA reversed the decision and remanded the case back to the RTC. although
respondent was bound by the resulting admission prompted by her failure to reply to
petitioner’s request for admission, her claims and documentary exhibits clearly
contradict what petitioner sought to be admitted in his request and that the trial court
disregarded the fact that the issues of whether the subject property is conjugal was still
unresolved as the case was still pending

Whether or not the request for admission of the decision in the Gingoyon’s case
was made premature

SC ruled in the affirmative

The trial court disregarded the fact that the issues of whether the subject property
is conjugal was still unresolved as the case was still pending. It should have known that
until the appeal is resolved by the appellate court, it would be premature to render
judgment on petitioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.
On the part of petitioner, by invoking the proceedings and decision in the
Gingoyon Case, he is precluded from obtaining judgement while the appeal in said case
is pending, because the result thereof determines whether the subject property is
indeed conjugal or not.
While it is true that a judgement cannot bind persons who are not parties to an
action, petitioner is now bound by the judgement in the appeal for Gingoyon Case. If the
judgement is deemed that the property is conjugal property, he is barred by estoppel
since such decision is already admitted

Lanada v CA GR nos. 102390 and 102404

Spouses Hemedez filed an action for damages against persons for the death of
Dr. Vied Hemedez which happened in a dispersal operation during a strike staged by
the Union of Filipino Employees on account of alleged unfair labor practices committed
by Nestle Philippines

Spouses Hemedez filed in the RTC of laguna against nestle and several persons
for the death of Dr. Hemedez. In their answer to the complaint, Nestle and Santos
denied liability for the death.They interposed as special and affirmative defenses that
Nestle and Belltown Transport Services has contracted an agreement in which a
stipulation where Belltown would assume liability for any injuries or damages to
properties is stated.
 Hemedez spouses served the defendants a request for admission of the truth of
the facts set forth in their complaint and the genuineness of each of the documents
appended thereto. The adverse parties, through their respective counsels, filed their
verified answer.
Hemedez sought to strike out said answers, contending that under Sec 2 of Rule
26 of ROC the parties themselves and not their counsel should personally answer the
request for admission and hence the answer filed by their counsel in their behalf was
“by nature based on hearsay.” RTC denied the motion of Hemedez claiming that the
grounds relief on were “more formal than substantial”

Whether or not the sworn answer in response to the request for admission
should be personally answered by the parties themselves and not through
counsel

Court ruled in the negative

As stated in PSCFC Financial Corporation v CA, when Rule 26 states that a party shall
respond to the request for admission, it should not be restrictively construed to mean
that a party may not engage the services of counsel to make the response in his behalf
Sec 21 of Rule 138 states that an attorney is presumed to be properly authorized
to represent any cause in which he appears, no written power of attorney is required to
authorize him to appear in court for his client

Allied Agri-Business v CA Gr 118438

Cherry Valley is a foreign company based in england filed a complaint with the
RTC of Makati for the collection of a sum of money. Allied filed an answer denying the
material allegations of the complaint
Cherry Valley then served upon Allied a request for admission, Allied failed to
submit a sworn answer to the request for admission and Cherry Valley filed a motion for
summary judgment alleging that there was already an implied admission on the matters
requested for admission pursuant to Rule 26 of ROC. The trial court rendered
judgement against petitioner finding them to be liable to pay damages

Whether or not the failure of Allied to file a sworn answer would yield to an
implied admission of the facts to be used for summary judgement

Court ruled in the affirmative

 Pursuant to Rule 26, failure to file a sworn answer would have an effect of
implied admission of the matters stated in the request. The purpose of the rule
governing said requests for admission of facts and genuineness of documents is to
expedite trial
Petitioner failed to reply to a request to admit, it may not argue that the adverse
party has the burden of proving the facts sought to be admitted. It is a settled rule that
summary judgement may be granted if the facts which stand admitted by reason of a
party’s failure to deny statements contained in a request for admission show that no
material issue of fact exists. By its failure to answer the other party’s request for
admission, petitioner has admitted all the material facts necessary for judgement
against itself

Brinoneria v CA 101682

Briboneria filed a complaint for annulment of document and damages against

Private Respondent Mag-isa. Mag-isa denied the allegations set forth in the complaint
for petitioner. Petitioner then served upon the counsel of private respondent a request
for admission.In which private respondent filed their answer beyond the 10 day period
but alleging that most if not all the matter subject of the petitioner’s request for
admission had been admitted, denied, and/or clarified in their previous answer.
Petitioner then filed a motion for summary judgement alleging that the answer
was filed past the prescribed period and was not made under oath. For non-compliance
of the rules set forth in Rule 26, matters subject of the request for admission are
deemed impliedly admitted. The trial court denied the motion for summary judgement

Whether or not matters set forth in the request for admission are deemed
admitted

Court ruled in the negative

Sec 1 Rule 26 states that 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
Sec 1 Rule 26 reads as “a party may serve upon any other party a written
request” should receive no other construction than that the request for admission must
be served directly on the party and not on his counsel.
Sime Darby v NLRC GR 148021

Sime Darby Association (union) and Sime Darby Pilipinas Inc (company) reached
a deadlock in their CBA negotiations. Sometime during the deadlock, the Company
declared and implemented a lockout against all the hourly employees of its tire factory
on the ground of sabotage and work slowdown. Soon after, the Company then sold the
tire manufacturing division and eventually served notices of termination to all the
employees, along with the petitioners

Petitioners filed a complaint for Illegal Dismissal before the DOLE, and a
subsequent complaint for Unfair Labor Practice. The cases were then consolidated and
assigned to Labor Arbiter Portillo. Petitioners then filed a request for admission
reiterating the allegations set forth in their consolidated cases. Respondents failed to file
a sworn answer to request of admission. The Labor Arbiter then decided in favor of the
Company stating that the termination suffered by the employees falls within Art 283 thus
is valid.

Whether or not the Request for Admission should have been granted even if the
allegations set forth are materially the same with the allegations stated in the
complaint

Court ruled in the negative

A request for admission is a remedy provided by Rule 26 of the Rules of Court,

which allows a party to file and serve upon any other party a written request for the
admission of: (i) the genuineness of any material and relevant document described in
and exhibited with the request; or (ii) the truth of any material and relevant matter of fact
set forth in the request. Said request must be answered under oath within the period
indicated in the request, otherwise the matters of which admission were requested
should be deemed admitted. Petitioners claim that respondents, instead of filing an
answer under oath, filed an unsworn reply/objection thereto. Thus, the admissions
should be deemed admitted in their favor.
A review of said Request for Admission shows that it contained matters which
are precisely the issues in the consolidated cases, and/or irrelevant matters. Rule 26 as
a mode of discovery contemplates of interrogatories that would clarify and tend to shed
light on the truth or falsity of the allegations in a pleading. That is its primary function. It
does not refer to a mere reiteration of what has already been alleged in the pleadings.
 Petitioner's request constitutes "an utter redundancy and a useless, pointless
process which the respondent should not be subjected to." The rule on admission as a
mode of discovery is intended "to expedite trial and to relieve parties of the costs of
proving facts which will not be disputed on trial and the truth of which can be
ascertained by reasonable inquiry." Thus, if the request for admission only serves to
delay the proceedings by abetting redundancy in the pleadings, the intended purpose
for the rule will certainly be defeated.

Manzano vs. Despabiladeras G.R. No. 148786

Respondent Despabiladeras obtained on credit from Petitioner Manzano, various

construction material to be used in her construction project at the Camarines Sur
Polytechnic Colleges (CSPC). Petitioner then filed a complaint for the collection of
money and damages against respondent, alleging that the respondent did not
sufficiently settled her liabilities. In her Answer with Counterclaim, respondent alleged
that petitioner had substantially altered the prices of the construction materials delivered
to her, and she had made additional payments to petitioner via two checks.
Petitioner then filed a "Request for Admission" asking respondent to admit within
15 days from receipt of the following:

1. That on the specific dates set forth in Annexes A, A-1 and A-2 hereof, plaintiff
delivered to and defendant received the various items particularly described in said
annexes duly covered by the invoices respectively set forth therein;

2. That of the total amount of P314,610.50 representing the value of the goods
described in Annexes A, A-1 and A-2, plaintiff has paid only P130,000.00.

No response to the Request for Admission was proffered by respondent until in

the course of the trial of the case. Respondent filed a list of items admitted to have
been delivered and those not admitted, noting therein that "Deliveries admitted do not
bear the actual price agreed [upon] or the specifications requested," which filing the trial
court noted in its order of even date.
As a result, the trial court issued an order stating that the respondent failed to
answer under oath the request for admission, thus the facts requested to be admitted
are hereby confirmed. RTC then rendered a decision in favor of the petitioners and
stated that respondent is liable to pay the sum of money and damages prayed for.

Whether or not the material facts in the Request for Admission shall be
deemed admitted due to respondent’s failure to deny the same
 Court ruled in the affirmative

Respondent having failed to discharge what is incumbent upon her under Rule
26, that is, to deny under oath the facts bearing on the main issue contained in the
"Request for Admission," she was deemed to have admitted that she received the
construction materials, the cost of which was indicated in the request and was indebted
to petitioner in the amount of P184,610.50 (P314,610.50 less the partial payment of
P130,000.00).

Limos v Sps Odones Gr. 186979

Spouses Odones are the owners of a 940-square meter parcel of land located at
Pao 1st, Camiling, Tarlac by virtue of an Extrajudicial Succession of Estate and Sale
dated, January 29, 2004, executed by the surviving grandchildren and heirs of Donata
Lardizabal in whom the original title to the land was registered. These heirs were
Soledad Razalan Lagasca, Ceferina Razalan Cativo, Rogelio Lagasca Razalan and
Dominador Razalan.They found out that the land's Original Certificate of Title (OCT)
was cancelled on April 27, 2005 and replaced by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No.
329427 in the name of herein petitioners.
Petitioners were able to secure TCT No. 329427 by virtue of a Deed of Absolute
Sale allegedly executed by Donata Lardizabal and her husband Francisco Razalan on
April 18, 1972. Petitioners then subdivided the lot among themselves and had TCT No.
329427 cancelled. In lieu thereof, three new TCTs were issued: TCT No. 392428 in the
names of Socorro Limos and spouses Rolando Delos Reyes and Eugene Delos Reyes,
TCT No. 392429 in the names of Spouses delos Reyes and TCT No. 392430 in the
name of Rosa Delos Reyes.

Respondents sought the cancellation of these new TCTs on the ground that the
signatures of Donata Lardizabal and Francisco Razalan in the 1972 Deed of Absolute
Sale were forgeries, because they died on June 30, 1926 and June 5, 1971,
respectively. In their answer, petitioners pleaded affirmative defenses, which also
constitute grounds for dismissal of the complaint. These grounds were: (1) failure to
state a cause of action; (2) non-joinder of the other heirs of Donata Lardizabal as
indispensable parties; and (3) respondents' claim is barred by laches.
In their Reply, respondents denied the foregoing affirmative defenses, and
insisted that the Extrajudicial Succession of Estate and Sale was valid. They maintained
their standing as owners of the subject parcel of land and the nullity of the 1972
Absolute Deed of Sale, upon which respondents anchor their purported title.Thereafter,
petitioners served upon respondents a Request for Admission. Respondents failed to
respond to the Request for Admission, prompting petitioners to file a Motion to Set for
Preliminary Hearing on the Special and Affirmative Defenses
The RTC denied the Motion and held that item nos. 1 to 4 in the Request for
Admission were earlier pleaded as affirmative defenses in petitioners' Answer, to which
respondents already replied on July 17, 2006. Hence, it would be redundant for
respondents to make another denial. The trial court further observed that item nos. 5, 6,
and 7 in the Request for Admission were already effectively denied by the Extrajudicial
Succession of Estate and Sale appended to the complaint and by the Sinumpaang
Salaysay of Amadeo Razalan attached to respondents' Reply. 16 Petitioners moved for
reconsideration 17 but the same was denied in an Order dated January 5, 2007.

Whether or not the Request for Admission should have been granted even
if the matters set forth in petitioners' Request for Admission were the same
affirmative defenses pleaded in their Answer which respondents already
traversed in their Reply

Court ruled in the negative

The said defenses were likewise sufficiently controverted in the complaint and its
annexes. In effect, petitioners sought to compel respondents to deny once again the
very matters they had already denied, a redundancy, which if abetted, will serve no
purpose but to delay the proceedings and thus defeat the purpose of the rule on
admission as a mode of discovery which is "to expedite trial and relieve parties of the
costs of proving facts which will not be disputed on trial and the truth of which can be
ascertained by reasonable inquiry."
Verily then, if the trial court finds that the matters in a Request for Admission
were already 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.