E.

ALLEGATIONS IN PLEADINGS

1. LA MALLORCA vs. COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. L-20761 July 27, 1966
BARRERA, J.:
Doctrine: AVERMENT THEREOF IS PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE RULES OF COURT
ALTHOUGH INCOMPATIBLE WITH CLAIM OF CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE
The complaint contained an allegation for quasi-delict. The inclusion of averment for
quasi-delict, while incompatible with the other claim under the contract of carriage, is
permissible under Section 2 of Rule 8 of the New Rules of Court, which allows a plaintiff
to allege causes of action in the alternative, be they compatible with each other or not, to
the end that the real matter in controversy may be resolved and determined. Thus, even
assuming arguendo that the contract of carriage had terminated, herein petitioner can be
held liable for the negligence of its driver. The presentation of proof of the negligence of
its driver gave rise to the presumption that the defendant employer did not exercise the
diligence of a good father of the family in the selection and supervision of its employees.
The petitioner had failed to overcome such presumption. Consequently, the petitioner
must be adjudged pecuniarily liable for the death of the child.

2. L.O. HIBBERD vs. WM. J. ROHDE and D.J. MCMILLIAN

G.R. No. L-8418 December 9, 1915
TRENT, J.:

Doctrine: ADMISSION OF GENUINENESS AND DUE EXECUTION

By the admission of the genuineness and due execution of an instrument, as the terms
used in section 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is meant that the party whose
signature it bears admits that he signed it or that it was signed by another for him with
his authority; that at the time it was signed it was in words and figures exactly as set out
in the pleading of the party relying upon it; that the document was delivered; and that
any formal requisites required by law, such as a seal, an acknowledgment or revenue
stamp, which Iacks, are waived by him.

Doctrine: DEFENSES CUT-OFF BY ADMISSION OF GENUINENESS AND DUE

EXECUTION

When a party is deemed to have admitted the genuineness and due execution of an
actionable document, defenses that are implied from the admission are waived. Hence,
the party who failed to specifically deny the document under oath cannot be allowed to
raise the defense of forgery, or lack of authority, or that the party charged signed the
instrument in some other capacity than that alleged in the pleading, or that the document
was never delivered. These defenses are cut off by the admission of the document’s
genuineness and due execution, they being implied from such admission.
Doctrine: DEFENSES AVAILABLE DESPITE ADMISSION OF DUE EXECUTION
Defenses, which are not inconsistent with the admission, are not however, barred.
Among these defenses are payment, want of consideration, and illegality of
consideration, usury, illegality or fraud.
(Any defense of new matter, such as payment where nonpayment is alleged, the statute
of limitations, illegality of consideration, etc., may be under a proper plea to that effect,
notwithstanding the failure of the party charged to enter a verified denial of the
genuineness and due execution of the document declared upon.)