1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
RULE 8
Manner of Making Allegations in Pleadings
As Amended by A.M. no. 19-10-20-SC
In general — Every pleading shall contain in a
methodical and logical form, a plain, concise
and direct statement of the ultimate facts on
which the party pleading relies for his claim or
defense, as the case may be, omitting the
statement of mere evidentiary facts.
If a defense relied on is based on law, the
pertinent provisions thereof and their
applicability to him shall be clearly and
concisely stated.
Alternative causes of action or defenses. — A party
may set forth two or more statements of a claim
or defense alternatively or hypothetically, either
in one cause of action or defense or in separate
causes of action or defenses. When two or more
statements are made in the alternative and one
of them if made independently would be
sufficient, the pleading is not made insufficient
by the insufficiency of one or more of the
alternative statements.
Conditions precedent. — In any pleading a general
averment of the performance or occurrence of
all conditions precedent shall be sufficient.
Capacity. — Facts showing the capacity of a
party to sue or be sued or the authority of a
party to sue or be sued in a representative
capacity or the legal existence of an organized
association of person that is made a party, must
be averred. A party desiring to raise an issue as
to the legal existence of any party or the capacity
of any party to sue or be sued in a
representative capacity, shall do so by specific
denial, which shall include such supporting
particulars as are peculiarly within the pleader's
knowledge.
Fraud, mistake, condition of the mind. — In all
averments of fraud or mistake the circumstances
constituting fraud or mistake must be stated
with particularity. Malice, intent, knowledge, or
other condition of the mind of a person may be
averred generally.
In general. — Every pleading shall contain in a
methodical and logical form, a plain, concise
Section 1 and direct statement of the ultimate facts,
including the evidence on which the party
pleading relies for his or her claim or defense,
as the case may be.
If a cause of action or defense relied on is
based on law, the pertinent provisions there-
of and their applicability to him or her shall
be clearly and concisely stated.
Alternative causes of action or defenses. — A
party may set forth two or more statements of a
Section 2 claim or defense alternatively or hypothetically,
either in one cause of action or defense or in
separate causes of action or defenses. When two
or more statements are made in the alternative
and one of them if made independently would
be sufficient, the pleading is not made
insufficient by the insufficiency of one or more
of the alternative statements.
Conditions precedent. — In any pleading, a
Section 3 general averment of the performance or
occurrence of all conditions precedent shall be
sufficient.
Capacity. — Facts showing the capacity of a
party to sue or be sued or the authority of a par-
ty to sue or be sued in a representative capacity
Section 4 or the legal existence of an organized
association of persons that is made a party,
must be averred. A party
desiring to raise an issue as to the legal exist-
ence of any party or the capacity of any party to
sue or be sued in a representative capacity, shall
do so by specific denial, which shall include
such supporting particulars as are peculiarly
within the pleader’s knowledge.
Fraud, mistake, condition of the mind. — In all
Section 5 averments of fraud or mistake, the
circumstances constituting fraud or mistake
must be stated with particularity. Malice, intent,
knowledge, or other condition of the mind of a
person may be averred generally.
 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
RULE 8
Manner of Making Allegations in Pleadings
As Amended by A.M. no. 19-10-20-SC
Judgment. — In pleading a judgment or decision
of a domestic or foreign court, judicial or
quasi-judicial tribunal, or of a board or officer, it
is sufficient to aver the judgment or decision
without setting forth matter showing jurisdiction
to render it.
Action or defense based on document. — Whenever
an action or defense is based upon a written
instrument or document, the substance of such
instrument or document shall be set forth in the
pleading, and the original or a copy thereof shall
be attached to the pleading as an exhibit, which
shall be deemed to be a part of the pleading, or
said copy may with like effect be set forth in the
pleading.
How to contest such documents. — When an action
or defense is founded upon a written
instrument, copied in or attached to the
corresponding pleading as provided in the
preceding section, the genuineness and due
execution of the instrument shall be deemed
admitted unless the adverse party, under oath
specifically denies them, and sets forth what he
claims to be the facts, but the requirement of an
oath does not apply when the adverse party
does not appear to be a party to the instrument
or when compliance with an order for an
inspection of the original instrument is refused.
Official document or act. — In pleading an official
document or official act, it is sufficient to aver
that the document was issued or the act done in
compliance with law.
Specific denial. — A defendant must specify each
material allegation of fact the truth of which he
does not admit and, whenever practicable, shall
set forth the substance of the matters upon
which he relies to support his denial. Where a
defendant desires to deny only a part of an aver-
ment, he shall specify so much of it as is true and
material and shall deny only the remainder.
Where a defendant is without knowledge or in-
formation sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of a material averment made to the com-
plaint, he shall so state, and this shall have the
effect of a denial.
Judgment. — In pleading a judgment or deci-
sion of a domestic or foreign court, judicial or
Section 6 quasi-judicial tribunal, or of a board or officer,
it is sufficient to aver the judgment or decision
without setting forth matter showing
jurisdiction to render it. An authenticated copy
of the judgment or decision shall be attached
to the pleading.
Action or defense based on document. -
Whenever an action or defense is based upon a
Section 7 written instrument or document, the substance
of such instrument or document shall be set
forth in the pleading, and the original or a copy
thereof shall be attached to the pleading as an
exhibit, which shall be deemed to be a part of
the pleading.
How to contest such documents. - When an
action or defense is founded upon a written
Section 8 instrument, or attached to the corresponding
pleading as provided in the preceding section,
the genuineness and due execution of the in-
strument shall be deemed admitted unless the
adverse party, under oath specifically denies
them, and sets forth what he or she claims to be
the facts; but the requirement of an oath does
not apply when the adverse party does not ap-
pear to be a party to the instrument or when
compliance with an order for an inspection of
the original instrument is refused.
Official document or act.- In pleading an offi-
Section 9 cial document or official act, it is sufficient to
aver that the document was issued or the act
was done in compliance with law.
Specific denial. — A defendant must specify each
material allegation of fact the truth of which he or
Section 10
she does not admit and, whenever practicable,
shall set forth the substance of the matters upon
which he or she relies to support his or her denial.
Where a defendant desires to deny only a part of
an averment, he or she shall specify so much of it
as is true and material and shall deny only the re-
mainder. Where a defendant is without knowledge
or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of a material averment made to the com-
plaint, he or she shall so state, and this shall have
the effect of a denial.
 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
RULE 8
Manner of Making Allegations in Pleadings
As Amended by A.M. no. 19-10-20-SC
Allegations not specifically denied deemed admitted.
— Material averment in the complaint, other
than those as to the amount of unliquidated
damages, shall be deemed admitted when not
specifically denied. Allegations of usury in a
complaint to recover usurious interest are
deemed admitted if not denied under oath.
Striking out of pleading or matter contained therein.
— Upon motion made by a party before
responding to a pleading or, if no responsive
pleading is permitted by these Rules, upon
motion made by a party within twenty (20) days
after the service of the pleading upon him, or
upon the court's own initiative at any time, the
court may order any pleading to be stricken out
or that any sham or false, redundant,
immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter be
stricken out therefrom.
Allegations not specifically denied deemed admit-
ted. — Material averments in a pleading asserting
Section 11 a claim or claims, other than those as to the
amount of unliquidated damages, shall be deemed
admitted when not specifically denied.
Affirmative defenses. — (a) A defendant shall
raise his or her affirmative defenses in his or her
Section 12 answer, which shall be limited to the reasons set
forth under Section 5(b), Rule 6, and the follow-
ing grounds:
1. That the court has no jurisdiction over the
person of the defending party;
2. That venue is improperly laid; Page 8 of 52
3. That the plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue;
4. That the pleading asserting the claim states no
cause of action; and
5. That a condition precedent for filing the claim
has not been complied with.
(b) Failure to raise the affirmative defenses at the
earliest opportunity shall constitute a waiver
thereof.
(c) The court shall motu proprio resolve the
above affirmative defenses within thirty (30)
calendar days from the filing of the answer.
(d) As to the other affirmative defenses under the
first paragraph of Section 5(b), Rule 6, the court
may conduct a summary hearing within fifteen
(15) calendar days from the filing of the answer.
Such affirmative defenses shall be resolved by
the court within thirty (30) calendar days from
the termination of the summary hearing.
(e) Affirmative defenses, if denied, shall not be
the subject of a motion for reconsideration or
petition for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus,
but may be among the matters to be raised on
appeal after a judgment on the merits.
Striking out of pleading or matter contained
therein. — Upon motion made by a party before
Section 13 responding to a pleading or, if no responsive
pleading is permitted by these Rules, upon motion
made by a party within twenty (20) calendar days
after the service of the pleading upon him or her,
or upon the court's own initiative at any time, the
court may order any pleading to be stricken out or
that any sham or false, redundant, immaterial,
impertinent, or scandalous matter be stricken out
therefrom.
 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
RULE 8
Manner of Making Allegations in Pleadings

Supreme Court Cases

Court ruling asserting the reliance of pleadings to the Ultimate Facts

G.R. no. 139539

Ceroferr Realty Corporation vs. Court of Appeals and Ernesto D. Santiago

The rules of procedure require that the complaint must state a concise statement of the ultimate facts or the essential
facts constituting the plaintiff’s cause of action. A fact is essential if it cannot be stricken out without leaving the
statement of the cause of action inadequate. A complaint states a cause of action only when it has its three indispensable
elements, namely:
(1) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created;
(2) an obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to violate such right; and
(3) an act or omission on the part of such defendant violative of the right of plaintiff or constituting a breach of the
obligation of defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action for recovery of damages. If these
elements are not extant, the complaint becomes vulnerable to a motion to dismiss on the ground of failure to state a
cause of action.

These elements are present in the case at bar. The petition is granted.

Court ruling asserting the compliance to Condition Precedent before the cause of action arises

G.R. no. 127139

Jaime C. Lopez vs. City of Manila, Et. Al.

As a general rule, where the law provides for the remedies against the action of an administrative board, body, or
officer, relief to courts can be sought only after exhausting all remedies provided. The reason rests upon the
presumption that the administrative body, if given the chance to correct its mistake or error, may amend its decision on
a given matter and decide it properly. Therefore, where a remedy is available within the administrative machinery, this
should be resorted to before resort can be made to the courts, not only to give the administrative agency the opportunity
to decide the matter by itself correctly, but also to prevent unnecessary and premature resort to courts.

We have carefully scrutinized the record of this case and we found no cogent reason to depart from the findings made
by the trial court on this point. As correctly found by the trial court, the petition does not fall under any of the
exceptions to excuse compliance with the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies .

The petition is denied.

 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
RULE 8
Manner of Making Allegations in Pleadings

FAQs

(BAR 2002)
(BAR 1991)
The plaintiff sued the defendant in
In an action for collection of P2,000,000.00, plaintiff bank alleged that
the RTC to collect on a promissory
defendant, Oriental Textile Mills, Inc. for valuable consideration, execut-
note, the terms of which were stated in
ed in favor of the bank a promissory note for said amount. Defendant
the complaint and a photocopy at-
filed an answer to the complaint denying liability and alleging that Jesus
tached to the complaint as an annex.
Lim had no authority to negotiate and obtain a loan in its behalf nor to
Before answering, the defendant filed
sign the promissory note. The answer was not verified. During the trial,
a motion for an order directing the
defendant sought to introduce evidence to show that Jesus Lim was not
plaintiff to produce the original of the
authorized to enter into the transaction and to sign the promissory note
note so that the defendant could in-
for and in behalf of the defendant corporation. Plaintiff objected to such
spect it and verify his signature and
evidence, claiming that Lim's authority had been admitted by defendant's
the handwritten entries of the dates
failure to verify the answer.
and amounts.
The judge sustained the objection. Was the ruling correct?
1. Should the judge grant the defend-
ant’s motion for production and in-
Answer: The ruling of the court is correct. Where the claim is based on an
spection of the original of the promis-
actionable document like a promissory note, the genuineness and due
sory note? Why?
execution of the note are deemed admitted where such matters are not
2 . A s s u m -
specifically denied under oath. In the instant case, the defendant in not
ing that an order for production and verifying his answer did not make a denial under oath. When a party is deemed to
inspection was issued but the plaintiff have admitted the genuineness and due execution of an actionable document,
failed to comply with it, how should defenses that are implied from said admission are necessarily waived like the
the defendant plead to the alleged exe- defenses of forgery of the document, lack or authority to execute the document,
cution of the note? that the party charged signed the document in some other capacity than that
alleged in the pleading, or that the document was never delivered. (Section 8)
Answer:
1. Yes, because upon motion of any
party showing good cause, the court in
which the action is pending may order
(BAR 2019)
any party to produce and permit the
Mr. C sued Mr. D for re-conveyance of property and damages, claiming
inspection of designated documents.
that Mr. D, through fraud and forgery, was able to obtain the title to Lot
No. 1234, which was previously registered in Mr. C's name. The
2. The defendant has the right to
complaint was filed before the Regional Trial Court. Instead of filing an
inspect and verify the original of the
answer, Mr. D moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of
promissory note so that he could
cause of action. In opposition, Mr. C argued that lack of cause of action is
intelligently prepare his answer. The
not a ground for a motion to dismiss as the ground provided under
defendant is not required to deny
Section 1 (g), Rule 16 of the Rules of Court is failure to state a cause of
under oath the genuineness and due
action. Distinguish the concepts of lack of cause of action and failure to
execution of the promissory note,
state a cause of action. Based on this distinction, is Mr. C's opposition
because of the non-compliance by the tenable?
plaintiff with the order for production
and inspection of the original thereof. Answer: AS TO NATURE. Failure to state a cause of action relates to the failure of
the allegations of the pleading to state a cause of action, while lack of cause of
action relates to a failure of proof, that is, the plaintiff’s failure to prove by evidence
his allegations relating to his cause of action. AS TO REMEDY. Failure to state a
cause of action can be raised as an affirmative defense under Rule 8; while lack of
cause of action is a ground for a demurrer to evidence uiinder Rule 33. Mr. C's
opposition is tenable as lack of cause of action is not a valid ground for a motion to
dismiss. Under the Rules on Civil Procedure, lack of cause of action is not a ground
for a motion to dismiss. [NOTE: Under the 2019 amendments to the Rules on Civil
Procedure (Section 12, Rule 8), failure to state a cause of action is no longer
considered as a valid ground for a motion to dismiss].