Anda di halaman 1dari 2

SALVADOR D. BRIBONERIA vs.

COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 101682

December 14, 1992

Facts:
Petitioner Salvador D. Briboneria, 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, with the Regional Trial Court of Pasig.
In due time, private respondent Gertrudes B. Mag-isa, as defendant, filed her answer,
after issues in the case had been joined, petitioner served on the private respondent
Mag-isa a request for admission. Petitioner filed a Motion for summary Judgment,
claiming that the Answer to Request for admission was filed by private respondents
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. The
private respondents filed an opposition to the motion for summary judgment, while the
petitioner filed a reply to said opposition. The petitioner thereupon filed with the Court of
Appeals a petition for certiorari ,prohibition and mandamus to annul and set aside the
order of the court a quo, alleging that the said order was issued with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals dismisses the petition.
Petitioner's motion for reconsideration having been likewise denied.
Issue:
Whether or not the appellate court erred in holding that the matters of fact and the
documents requested to be admitted are mere reiterations and/or reproductions of
those alleged in the complaint.
Ruling:
He claims that the material facts and documents described in the request for admission
are relevant evidentiary matters supportive of his cause of action. He further argues that
the private respondents have impliedly admitted the material facts and documents
subject of the request for admission on account of their failure to answer the request for
admission within the period fixed therein, and for said answer not being under oath. The
petition cannot be upheld; the petitioner's contentions are devoid of merit. "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." 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 Magisa, 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. The petition should be, as it is hereby, DENIED. The decision of the
Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.