Galofa v.

Sing
No L-22018. 17 January 1968

FACTS
Galofa filed a complaint against Sing for recovery of possession and quieting of title of
Sorsogon lots.
o He alleged his fathers prior ownership and the later adjudication of the lots
among heirs.
o He also alleged that he was unable to take actual possession due to the adverse
claim by Sings tenant. Sing claimed that a Fe Nicolas sold him the lot but Galofa
noted that Sing is an alien.
In his Answer, Sing denied material averments and claimed that he never asserted
ownership nor claimed any possessory rights and that if Galofa hired a lawyer to settle
the issue, it his the latters own personal responsibility (to pay attorneys fees).
RTC declared Galofa the owner, ordered Sing to pay attorneys fees and costs.

ISSUE + RULING
Did Sings Answer fail to tender a genuine issue? YES.
Sings denial is as to the material averments... conjoined with his disclaimer.
o Therefore, his denial is a negative pregnant, which is equivalent to an admission.
o "A denial in the form of a negative pregnant is an ambiguous pleading, since it
cannot be ascertained whether it is the fact or only the qualification that is
intended to be denied."
As to Galofas allegations that he contracted a lawyer for a fee, Sings denial was of his
own liability, and not the fact thereof.
Sings specific denial of paragraphs 5,6, and 7 (re: damages) was not required (Sec 1,
Rule 9)