Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 69 views

    Briboneria V Ca

    Uploaded by

    Leo Angelo Menguito
    This case involves a petition filed by Salvador Briboneria seeking to annul a sale of property to Gertrudes Mag-isa that was allegedly unauthorized. Briboneria served a request for admission on Mag-isa's counsel but not directly on Mag-isa. Mag-isa responded to the request after the deadline. The trial court initially granted summary judgment for Briboneria but reconsidered. The Court of Appeals and Supreme Court affirmed, finding that the request for admission merely restated the complaint and was not properly served directly on Mag-isa so she could not be deemed to have admitted the facts by not responding on time. The petition was denied and the Court of Appeals decision was affirmed.

    Copyright:

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

    Briboneria V Ca

    Uploaded by

    Leo Angelo Menguito
    69 views2 pages
    This case involves a petition filed by Salvador Briboneria seeking to annul a sale of property to Gertrudes Mag-isa that was allegedly unauthorized. Briboneria served a request for admission on Mag-isa's counsel but not directly on Mag-isa. Mag-isa responded to the request after the deadline. The trial court initially granted summary judgment for Briboneria but reconsidered. The Court of Appeals and Supreme Court affirmed, finding that the request for admission merely restated the complaint and was not properly served directly on Mag-isa so she could not be deemed to have admitted the facts by not responding on time. The petition was denied and the Court of Appeals decision was affirmed.

    Original Title

    BRIBONERIA V CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a petition filed by Salvador Briboneria seeking to annul a sale of property to Gertrudes Mag-isa that was allegedly unauthorized. Briboneria served a request for admission on Mag-isa's counsel but not directly on Mag-isa. Mag-isa responded to the request after the deadline. The trial court initially granted summary judgment for Briboneria but reconsidered. The Court of Appeals and Supreme Court affirmed, finding that the request for admission merely restated the complaint and was not properly served directly on Mag-isa so she could not be deemed to have admitted the facts by not responding on time. The petition was denied and the Court of Appeals decision was affirmed.

    Copyright:

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

    Briboneria V Ca

    Uploaded by

    Leo Angelo Menguito
    This case involves a petition filed by Salvador Briboneria seeking to annul a sale of property to Gertrudes Mag-isa that was allegedly unauthorized. Briboneria served a request for admission on Mag-isa's counsel but not directly on Mag-isa. Mag-isa responded to the request after the deadline. The trial court initially granted summary judgment for Briboneria but reconsidered. The Court of Appeals and Supreme Court affirmed, finding that the request for admission merely restated the complaint and was not properly served directly on Mag-isa so she could not be deemed to have admitted the facts by not responding on time. The petition was denied and the Court of Appeals decision was affirmed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    BRIBONERIA V CA

    FACTS:

    Petitioner Salvador D. Briboneria, as plaintiff, filed a complaint for


    Annulment of Document and Damages, with prayer for preliminary
    injunction and/or temporary restraining order against private respondent
    Gertrudes B. Mag-isa who was able to acquire private respondent’s house
    and lot allegedly through an unauthorized sale effected by his wife.

    In due time, private respondent Mag-isa, as defendant, filed her answer.

    After issues in the case had been joined, petitioner served on Mag-isa,
    through her counsel, a request for admission dated September 13, 1988.

    On 10 November 1988, the private respondents filed 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 20 June 1988, and that the other matters not
    admitted, denied and/or clarified were either irrelevant or improper.

    On 18 November 1988, petitioner filed a Motion for summary Judgment,


    claiming that the Answer to Request for Admission was filed by private
    respondent is beyond the ten (10) day period fixed in the request and that
    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.

    The trial court denied the motion. The Motion for Reconsideration, however, was
    granted.

    The petitioner thereupon filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari,
    prohibition and mandamus to annul and set aside the order but it was denied,
    hence, this petition.

    ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner’s contentions are correct.

    RULING: The petitioner’s contentions are devoid of merit.

    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.”
    A request for admission is not intended to merely reproduce or reiterate
    the allegations of the requesting party’s pleading but should set forth
    relevant evidentiary matters of fact, or documents described in and
    exhibited with the request, whose purpose is to establish said party’s
    cause of action or defense. . . .

    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, it will be noted that the request for admission was not
    served upon the private respondent Mag-isa but upon her counsel, Atty.
    Alfredo A. Alto. Private respondent Mag-isa, 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.

    WHEREFORE, the petition should be, as it is hereby, DENIED. The decision of the


    Court of Appeals dated 13 August 1990 is AFFIRMED.

    SO ORDERED

    You might also like