Case No.

21
Rule 26- Admission by Adverse Party
DBP VS. CA

On 8 July 1996, Go filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City a Supplemental Complaint
for the "Exercise of Right of Redemption and Determination of Redemption Price, Nullification of
Consolidation, Annulment of Titles, with Damages, Plus Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order."
After the DBP filed its Answer but before the parties could proceed to trial, Go filed a Request for
Admission by Adverse Party. Thereafter, the DBP filed its Comment.

During the hearing on 20 May 1997, Go objected to the Comment reasoning that it was not under
oath as required by Section 2, Rule 26 of the Rules of Court, and that it failed to state the reasons for
the admission or denial of matters for which an admission was requested. For its part, the DBP
manifested that, first, the statements, allegations, and documents contained in the Request for
Admission are substantially the same as those in the Supplemental Complaint; second, they had
already been either specifically denied or admitted by the DBP in its Answer; and third, the reasons
for the denial or admission had already been specifically stated therein.

ISSUE
Whether matters requested to be admitted under Rule 26 of the Rules of Court which are mere
reiterations of the allegations in the complaint and are specifically denied in the answer may be
deemed impliedly admitted on the ground that the response thereto is not under oath.

RULING

No. DBP cannot be deemed to have impliedly admitted the matters set forth in the Request for
Admission for the mere reason that its comment was not under oath. As held in Po v. Court of
Appeals that "[a] party should not be compelled to admit matters of fact already admitted
by his pleading and ... to make a second denial of those already denied in his answer to
the complaint."

The Po doctrine was brought a step further in Concrete Aggregates Co. v. Court of Appeals ,[15] where
we ruled 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. It becomes, therefore, unnecessary to dwell
on the issue of the propriety of an unsworn response to the request for admission. The reason is
obvious. A request for admission that merely reiterates the allegations in an earlier pleading is
inappropriate under Rule 26 of the Rules of Court, which, 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 the
pleading. Rule 26 does not refer to a mere reiteration of what has already been alleged in the
pleadings.
Hence, the DBP did not even have to file its Comment on Go's Request for Admission, which merely
reproduced the allegations in her complaint. DBP's Answer itself controverts the averments in the
complaint and those recopied in the request for admission.

Under Section 1 of Rule 26 of the Rules of Court, 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 and exhibited 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 and material matters of facts and not for admission of matters of law,
conclusions, or opinions.

Since the allegations in this case are matters of law or opinion, they are improper matters and cannot
therefore be deemed impliedly admitted under Rule 26.

Principle:
A party cannot be deemed to have impliedly admitted the matters set forth in the Request for
Admission for the mere reason that its Comment was not under oath. That the Comment was not
under oath is not a substantive, but merely a formal defect which can be excused in the interest of
justice.

DBP cannot be deemed to have impliedly admitted the matters set forth in the Request for Admission
for the mere reason that its Comment was not under oath. That the comment was not under oath.
That the comment was not under oath is not a substantive, but merely a formal defect which can be
excused in the interest of justice conformably to the well-entrenched doctrine that all pleadings
should be liberally construed as to do substantial justice. The filing such Comment substantially
complied with Rule 26.