Case Digest: Briboneria vs 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.
