Rule 8 - Manner of

Making
Allegations in Pleadings

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

2001 Edition

Rule 8

MANNER OF MAKING ALLEGATIONS IN PLEADINGS

Sec. 1 In general Every pleading shall contain in a methodical and logical
form, a plain, concise and direct statement of the ultimate facts on which the
party pleading relies for his claim or defense, as the case may be, omitting the
statement of mere evidentiary facts.
If a defense relied on is based on law, the pertinent provisions thereof and
their applicability to him shall be clearly and concisely stated.

In so far as pleadings are concerned, it must only state the ultimate facts where you
relied your defense or complaint. You must omit the statement of mere evidentiary facts.
The basic question here is, what do you mean by ultimate facts? What are evidentiary
facts? Distinguish ultimate facts from evidentiary facts.
ULTIMATE FACTS vs. EVIDENTIARY FACTS
Q: What are ultimate facts?
A: Ultimate facts are those which is are essential to ones cause of action or defense.
Q: How do you determine whether a fact is essential to your cause of action or
defense?
A: The test to determine whether the fact is essential to your cause of action is: if the
statement in the pleading cannot be deleted. Because if you delete it, the statement of
your cause of action or defense become incomplete, a certain element of cause of action
disappears then it must be a statement of ultimate fact. Pagtinanggal mo, wala ka ng
cause of action. But if you delete it and there is still a cause of action, then it is not an
ultimate fact.
Q: What are the essential elements of a cause of action?
A: The following:
1.) Statement of the right;
2.) Statement of the obligation;
3.) Statement of the violation; and
4.) Statement of damage.
You analyze a complaint from the first to the last paragraph, you find out whether the
four are present. Now, for example a complaint has 20 paragraphs. Yan bang 20
paragraphs, importante ba lahat? We will shorten it by analyzing sentence by sentence. I
will remove paragraph #2. Are the elements of the cause of action still present out of the
remaining paragraph? If the answer is yes, then, paragraph #2 is not a statement of
ultimate fact. We will remove paragraph #5, the story is still complete, there is still a
cause of action, then, the paragraph or the statement that you removed is not a
statement of ultimate facts. Suppose I will remove paragraph #7, kulang na man, the
allegation of the violation of the right is no longer present, then, the paragraph #7 cannot
be deleted, otherwise, if you delete it the statement or the story or the cause of action
disappear. Then, that is an ultimate fact.
So if the statement can be deleted and the cause of action is still complete, then it is
not a statement of ultimate fact. It is only a statement of evidentiary fact.
Q: What are evidentiary facts?
A: Evidentiary facts are the facts which will prove the ultimate facts. They should not
be stated in the pleading. They should be brought out during the trial. They are proper
during the trial but they have no place in your pleading.
In the law on Evidence, ultimate facts are called facturn probandum as distinguished
from factum probans (evidentiary facts).

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA

136

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

2001 Edition

Rule 8 - Manner of
Making
Allegations in Pleadings

EXAMPLE: In a land dispute, the question is: Who has been in possession of the land
for a long time? I claim Im the one. So, I will say, plaintiff has been in possession of
this land continuously for the past 30 years. That is a statement of ultimate fact
because that shows your right your right over the property that you cannot be
driven out. Thirty years na gud iyan.
Suppose the lawyer wants to impress the court that the statement is true, the pleading
describing continues possession for the past 30 years from 1967 to 1997. And therefore,
the lawyer will now prepare the complaint in this manner:
Plaintiff has been in possession of the said property continuously,
openly for the past 30 years from 1967 to 1997 as may be born out by the
following:
He entered the property in 1967. He cleared the property by cutting the
grass. In 1968, he planted 20 coconut trees. In 1969, he planted 50 coconut
trees. In 1970, he planted mango trees. In 1971, he planted guava. He will
recite everything from 1967 to 1997.

That will really prove that he have been there for the past 30 years because continuous
eh, - every year you are reciting your activities including the taxes that you paid, the
receipt, yan o, eto and resibo ko! Now, if a lawyer will do that, his complaint will reach
100 pages. Do you know why? Because he violated Section 1. He did not only state the
ultimate facts but he also stated the evidentiary facts. So, what should be the correct
pattern? Complaint:
Plaintiff has been in continuous possession of the property for 30 years
from 1967 up to the present.

That is the ultimate fact. You do not have to recite exactly what you did because that is
what I intend to prove. Now, of course, during the trial, how can I convince the court that I
have been in possession of the property for 30 years? Kailangan you have to convince, di
ba? Then, during the trial, you present the plaintiff and you ask the plaintiff: Mr. Plaintiff,
when did you occupy the property? 1967 When you first occupied the property,
describe it. Ah, bagnot! I have to clean it. So I clean it in 1967. In 1968, were you still
there? Oh yes! What did you do in 1968? I planted coconut trees. Did you pay
taxes in 1968? Yes! Wheres the receipt? Eto o!
Yaan! From 1967, isa-isahin mo yan. Doon na tayo mag-istorya sa court. The
evidentiary facts should be brought out in court not in the pleadings, otherwise your
pleading become kilometric. That is what is meant by the phrase that you only state the
ultimate facts omitting the statement of evidentiary facts.
Another Example:
Collection case. Sabihin mo: The defendant borrowed money and then it fell
due. I made demands for him to pay, but despite repeated demands he refused
to pay.
Tama na iyon. You do not have to state in your complaint that when the account fell
due last November 5, I called him up by telephone. He promised to pay in November 7
and called him again and he promised to pay tomorrow Hindi na kailangang sabihin mo
iyan! Those are evidentiary facts. But during the trial, you can narrate that I have been
writing, eto o, andami kong sulat, I have been calling him by telephone but he kept on
promising. So, mag-istorya ka na ng detail sa husgado. Those are what you call
evidentiary facts. But in your complaint you do not have to recite all those.
Under Section 1, you state the ultimate facts on which you rely your claim or defense.
How do you state the facts? Section 1 says that statement of ultimate facts must be
stated in a methodical and logical form and you must use plain, concise and direct
statements or language. The simpler the language, the better. A pleading is not a vehicle
for you to show your mastery of the English language. The judge might throw away your
complaint for not using simple language.

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA

137

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

2001 Edition

Rule 8 - Manner of
Making
Allegations in Pleadings

I was reading an article about the use of plain, concise and direct language. I
remember- Do not use this word, rather use this word. For example, do not use the word
conflagration, use fire. The latter is simpler.
How do you present the facts? Methodical and logical form. It is a matter of writing
style. Every person has his style of writing. Corollary, every person expects you to write
in a methodical or logical form. We have said earlier that a pleading actually tells a story.
Plaintiff tells the court his story. Defendant tells his story, too. How will the court
understand your story? Your presentation must be methodical and logical.
Writing style is a gift, no? Some people tell their story clearly, others dont understand.
Sasabihin mo, sabog ka mag-storya. Ang labo mo! It is not methodical and logical.
Courts expect lawyers to present case in a methodical and logical form.
What is the first test whether you style is methodical or logical? The best exercise is
your own answer in examinations. In a problem, you answer and you try to argue why.
You try to present your answer in a clear manner. It must be methodical and logical.
In your examinations, you may wonder why you got a different score with your
classmates where in fact the substance of your answers is the same. Precisely because the
presentation of the answer also matters. Siya 80, ikaw 75. Tingnan mo ang kanyang
presentation, mas maganda. To know the answer is not enough, you must know HOW to
answer. Especially in the Bar exams where the corrector is correcting more than 4,000
notebooks, your notebook must project itself as if your notebook is telling the corrector:
Read me! Read me!! That is the formula to pass law school and the Bar.
PRINCIPLE: Only ultimate facts should be alleged and not the evidentiary facts.
Q: Apart from evidentiary facts, what are the other matters that should not be stated in
the pleading?
A: The following:
1.) Facts which are presumed by law;
2.) Conclusions of fact or law;
3.) Matters which are in the domain of judicial notice need not be alleged.
FACTS WHICH ARE PRESUMED BY LAW
Presumptions under the law need not be alleged in a pleading. When a fact is already
presumed by law, there is no need to make that allegation because your cause of action
would still be complete.
Example:
Q: In a case of breach of contract against an operator of the common carrier. Do you
think it is necessary for the plaintiff to allege that the driver acted negligently? Is an
allegation that the driver of the carrier acted with negligence required?
A: NOT required. There must be negligence, otherwise, there would be no cause of
action. However there is no need to allege it in the complaint because under the Civil
Code, whenever there is a breach of contract of carriage, there is a presumption of
negligence on the part of carrier. It is not for the passenger to prove that the common
carrier is negligent. It is for the common carrier to prove that it is not negligent.
HOWEVER, In culpa aquilana, or quasi-delict, where there is no pre-existing contract
between the parties, the liability of the defendant hinges on negligence. There must be
allegation of negligence. The defendant must be alleged to have acted negligently to hold
him liable. Otherwise, there is no cause of action. It becomes an ultimate fact which
should be alleged in the pleading.

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA

138

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

2001 Edition

Rule 8 - Manner of
Making
Allegations in Pleadings

CONCLUSIONS OF FACT OR LAW

Conclusions of law or conclusions of fact must not be stated in the pleading. A
statement of fact is different from a conclusion of fact or law. For EXAMPLE, where plaintiff
said that he is entitled to moral damages or attorneys fees. That is not a statement of fact
but your conclusion.
Statement of fact is to cite the basis why you are entitled you must state the reason
why you are entitled. The statement of the ultimate fact as distinguished from conclusion
was the old case of
MATHAY vs. CONSOLIDATED BANK
58 SCRA 559
HELD: A bare allegation that one is entitled to something is an allegation of a
conclusion. Such allegation adds nothing to the pleading, it being necessary to
plead specifically the facts upon which such conclusion is founded.
You must plead the facts upon which your conclusion is founded. To say that you are
entitled to something is not actually a statement of fact but merely a conclusion of the
pleader. It adds nothing to the pleading.
For EXAMPLE: The complaint alleges that the defendants are holding the plaintiffs
property in Trust for the plaintiff. Trustee ba you are holding the properties in trust for
me without any explanation of the facts from which the court could conclude whether
there is a trust or not. The SC in the case of MATHAY said that that statement is merely a
conclusion of the plaintiff. You must state the basis of your statement that they are
holding your property in trust.
Frankly speaking, there are numerous complaints which are convincing but upon
reading them thoroughly, you will realize that majority of the statements are not
statements of facts but conclusions of law. Tatanggalin yung conclusion. It is bad
complaint when you say that you are entitled to this without stating your basis.
So statement of law is not allowed although there is an exception under the second
paragraph of Section 1 which says that if a defense relied on is based on law, the
pertinent provisions thereof and their applicability to him shall be clearly and concisely
stated. At least now you can quote the law. Sometimes a defendant when he files his
answer, his answer is purely based on law. He must cite the legal provision in his answer
and explain WHY is it applicable to him.
ALLEGATION OF ALTERNATIVE CAUSES OF ACTION OR DEFENSES
Sec. 2.
Alternative causes of action or defenses. - A party may set forth
two or more statements of a claim or defense alternatively or hypothetically,
either in one cause of action or defense or in separate causes of action or
defenses. When two or more statements are made in the alternative and one of
them if made independently would be sufficient, the pleading is not made
insufficient by the insufficiency of one or more of the alternative statements.
(2)

Q: May a plaintiff in his complaint state two or more claims alternatively or

hypothetically?
A: Yes.
Q: What happens if one cause of action is insufficient? Will it cause the dismissal of the
complaint?
A: No, the complaint will remain insofar as the sufficient cause of action is stated. The
insufficiency of one will not affect the entire pleading if the other cause of action is
insufficient.

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA

139

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

2001 Edition

Rule 8 - Manner of
Making
Allegations in Pleadings

EXAMPLE:
I read a case about passenger who was about to board a bus. Of course when
you are a passenger and you get hurt, that is culpa contractual. If you are not a
passenger and you get hurt due to the negligence of the driver, that is culpa
aquiliana. So it depends whether there is a contract of carriage or none.
In that case, the passenger was about to board a bus. As a matter of fact, the
left foot had already stepped on the bus. The bus suddenly sped up. He fell. He
was not able to ride because umandar man bigla. He was injured. What is the
basis against the carrier? Is there a contract or none? There is! Nandoon na nga
ang kaliwang paa, eh. Sabi ng iba, wala pang contract. Well, may mga kaso
talaga na malabo. You dont really know whether your cause of action is culpa
contractual or culpa aquiliana. You want to claim damages but you are not sure
whether your case is based on culpa contractual or culpa aquiliana. Its either one
of the two. It sometimes happens.
Now, if I am the lawyer for the plaintiff and I am tortured to make my choice, I may
allege 2 possible alternative causes of action. I will draft the complaint in such a way that
I will show to the court that my cause of action is either culpa contractual or culpa
aquilana. I will make sure that both allegations are covered. You cannot be wrong
because the law does not require you to make a choice.
Q: You are the defendant. You are confronted with the same problem. There is a
complaint against you and you have 3 possible defenses. Am I obliged to make a choice
immediately?
A: NO. The law allows the defendant to cite the 3 possible defenses alternatively.
Meaning, each is my defense or not.
Suppose your defenses are inconsistent, takot ka. There is a lawyer I met na takot
maging inconsistent. I told him to look at Section 2, Rule 8 very well. The law allows
defendant to plead his defenses hypothetically or alternatively. He asked, what if they are
inconsistent with each other? I said, you look at SC decisions. The SC said a party may
plead 2 or more causes of action or 2 or more defenses alternatively. They may be
inconsistent with each other but what is important is each defense is consistent in itself.
Meaning, each defense, when taken alone, is a good defense. You look at them separately.
Do not compare them.
For EXAMPLE:
Plaintiff files a case against a defendant to collect an unpaid loan. The basic
allegation is that the defendant obtained a sum of money by way of loan and
never paid it. Here is defendants answer:
a.) That is not true. I never borrowed any money from the plaintiff. That is
a defense of denial.
b.) Assuming that I received money from the plaintiff, that money was not a
loan but plaintiffs birthday gift to me. In other words, it was a donation.
c.) Assuming that the money I received from the plaintiff was really a loan.
However, such amount was completely paid. Defense of payment.
So, I have 3 defenses. How can you reconcile these 3 defenses? They are inconsistent
with each other but it should not be taken against the defendant. What is important is
that each defense is consistent in itself. Look at them separately. That is also called a
SHOTGUN ANSWER. Sabog ba! In all directions.
However, during that trial, you have to choose among them which you think is true
based on evidence. The problem is that you choose one but it turned out that a different
defense would be correct. Hindi mo na magamit. There is a prejudice because during the
trial, I will choose among them with the evidence I have. Anyway, pleading man lang yon.

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA

140

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

2001 Edition

Rule 8 - Manner of
Making
Allegations in Pleadings

I can abandon the others. And that is even better because you might confuse the plaintiff
of what really is your defense. Thus, a lawyer should not be afraid to hypothetically or
alternatively plead defenses which are inconsistent with each other.
That is perfectly allowed as it is alternative and during trial the pleader may show the
best one rather than not stating it in the pleading and during the trial you waive the best
defense because according to the next rule, Rule 9, defenses or objections not pleaded in
the answer are deemed waived.
Take note that you have to correlate this topic on the related provisions we have
already taken up: For EXAMPLE:
1.) Rule 2, Section 5 where a party may, in one pleading state in the alternative or
otherwise, as many causes of action;
2.) Rule 3, Section 6 on permissive joinder of parties. When may 2 persons or more
be joined as plaintiffs or defendants and how are they joined? They are joined
jointly, severally, or alternatively; and
3.) Rule 3, Section 13 on alternative defendants. When you are uncertain who is the
real defendant, you may join them alternatively although the relief against one
may be inconsistent with the other.
Remember this provisions because they are interrelated. Thus, when you study the
Rules, dont limit yourself to a particular provision. Look for other related provisions so
you may see the entire picture. Thats called co-relation You dont only see the tree but
the entire forest. This is very helpful in the bar exam.
HOW ALLEGATIONS IN A PLEADING ARE MADE
Q: How do you make allegations or averments in a pleading? Can you do it in a general
manner or do you need to be specific? How do you allege your ultimate facts? Is it in
particular or general terms?
A: It depends on what matters you are alleging in your complaint whether is a
condition precedent, capacity to sue or be sued, fraud, mistake, malice, judgment, or
official document or act.
ALLEGATION OF A CONDITION PRECEDENT
Sec. 3. Conditions Precedent. - In any pleading, a general averment of the
performance or occurrence of all conditions precedent shall be sufficient. (3)

Sometimes in a pleading, you have to allege that the conditions precedent have
already been complied with. Can you still remember, one of the elements of a right of
action is that before you can go to court, you must comply with all the conditions
precedent?
Q: When you allege compliance with the conditions precedent, is it necessary for you to
be specific what are those conditions precedent?
A: NO. Section 3 says that in every pleading, a general averment for the performance
of all conditions precedent shall be sufficient. A general allegation will suffice.
For EXAMPLE, in Administrative Law, you have the doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies. Where a law provide for the exhaustion of administrative
remedies, court should not entertain cases without complying said remedies first. If the
rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies is violated, do you think your case will
prosper? NO, it will not.
Specific EXAMPLE: You started with a quarrel over a parcel of land where you
applied for homestead. May kalaban ka. Where will you file first? Bureau of Lands.
You may then appeal to the Secretary of Agriculture. From the Secretary of Agriculture,

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA

141

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

2001 Edition

Rule 8 - Manner of
Making
Allegations in Pleadings

you may go to the Office of the Presidential who can reverse the decision of the
secretary. Now, talo ka pa rin but you believe there is a good ground to reverse the
decisions in the executive department, you can now go to the court. That is called the
doctrine of judicial review of administrative decision. Yan!
Definitely, from the Bureau of Lands, you cannot directly go to the court because you
have not yet complied with conditions precedent before filing the case. And the condition
precedent is that you must comply with the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies.
Q: Now, suppose I have already complied with all these remedies. I will then go to
court. Definitely, I will allege that I have already exhausted remedies in the executive
level. Is that allegation sufficient? I have already exhausted my remedies in the
administrative level. Do I have to emphasize - I started with the Bureau of Lands. From
there, I went to Department of Agriculture. From there, I went to the Office of the
President?
A: According to Section 3, a general averment will be sufficient. You need not
specifically allege compliance of conditions precedent. Therefore, an averment of the
performance or occurrence of all conditions precedent may be made generally and it shall
be sufficient.
ALLEGATION OF CAPACITY TO SUE OR BE SUED
Sec. 4. Capacity - Facts showing the capacity of a party to sue or to be
sued or the authority of a party to sue or to be sued in a representative
capacity or the legal existence of an organized association of persons that is
made a party, must be averred. A party desiring to raise an issue as to the
legal existence of any party or the capacity of any party to sue or be sued in
a representative capacity, shall do so by specific denial, which shall include
such supporting particulars as are peculiarly within the pleader's knowledge.
(4)

When you file a case against somebody you must have capacity to sue and defendant
must have capacity to be sued.
Q: Is it necessary for me to say that plaintiff has capacity to sue? And the defendant
has capacity to be sued?
A: YES because Section 4 says you must show capacity to sue and be sued. It means
that capacity to sue and be sued must be averred with particularity. A general statement
of it is not sufficient. As a matter of fact, that is the first paragraph of a complaint:
Plaintiff, Juan dela Cruz, of legal age, single, a resident of Davao City There is no
presumption of capacity or incapacity to sue.
You may say, I am suing as guardian of the plaintiff. That is a representative party
to sue and be sued in a representative capacity. Can you say, I am suing as a guardian?
NO. Neither can you say, I am appointed as the guardian.
Q: How should it be done?
A: I am the courts appointed guardian of the plaintiff minor having been afforded
guardian by the court in this case based on an order. You have to emphasize that the
court appointed you.
Section 4 says, the legal existence of an organized association of persons that is made
a party... It means that the defendant is a corporation existing by virtue of the Philippine
Corporation Law. There is no presumption that you are corporation. That is the reason
why facts showing capacity to sue and be sued, etc. must be averred with particularity.
Theres a case which you will study in Corporation Law whether a foreign corporation
can sue in Philippine court. Under the law, it can sue provided it is licensed to do business
in the Philippines. The SC emphasized that if a foreign corporation is suing somebody in
Philippine courts, the complaint must specifically allege that a foreign corporation is doing
business in the Philippines with a license to do. Otherwise, it cannot sue. Yaan!

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA

142

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

2001 Edition

Rule 8 - Manner of
Making
Allegations in Pleadings

A party desiring to raise an issue as to the legal existence of any party

or the capacity of any party to sue or be sued in a representative capacity,
shall do so by specific denial, which shall include such supporting particulars
as are peculiarly within the pleader's knowledge (section 4, 2nd sentence)

EXAMPLE: You are the plaintiff corporation with juridical capacity. I am the defendant.
Suppose I will deny your capacity to sue. I will deny that you are a corporation licensed to
do business in the Philippines. Now, the law requires me to deny your legal capacity and I
must state the reason or basis of such denial why you are not of legal age, why you are
not a corporation.
This is so because the law says that when you deny or when you question the legal
existence of a party or the capacity of any party to sue and be sued, you shall do so by
specific denial which shall include such supporting particulars as are peculiarly within the
defendants knowledge. You cannot plead a general statement that you deny. Your denial
must be particular. You must be more specific about what you are denying.
ALLEGATION OF FRAUD OR MISTAKE
Sec. 5. Fraud, mistake, condition of the mind.- In all averments of fraud or
mistake, the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake must be stated with
particularity. Malice, intent, knowledge or other condition of the mind of a
person may be averred generally. (5a)

EXAMPLE: In annulment of a contract, fraud is one ground. Suppose the consent was
secured through fraud and plaintiff files a case that the defendant employed fraud in
obtaining his consent.
Q: Is this statement sufficient?
A: No, because the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake must be stated with
particularity. The complaint must state how the fraud was committed. It must be
described in detail how the fraud took place.
Q: In the second sentence, why is it that malice, intent, etc. may be averred generally?
A: A general averment of malice or intent suffices because one cannot describe or
particularize what is in the mind of a party. I cannot describe in detail the malice or the
knowledge in your mind. I can only say it in general terms.
Fraud, on the other hand, is employed openly, by overt acts. How you are deceived is
not only in the mind. Those are manifested by external acts. Therefore, one can describe
how a fraud was committed by the other party.
Sec. 6. Judgment. In pleading a judgment or decision of a domestic or
foreign court, judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal, or of a board or officer, it
is sufficient to aver the judgment or decision without setting forth matter
showing jurisdiction to render it. (6)

Sometimes a party invokes a judgment of a court or cite a previous case like res
adjudicata to dismiss a case.
Q: Suppose you will ask the court to dismiss the case because there was already
judgment rendered by the court years ago and you simply says, There was a previous
judgment. Is this sufficient?
A: YES because the law presumes that the judgment is valid. And the presumption is
that the court had jurisdiction. You do not have to say that the court had jurisdiction over
the subject matter, issues, etc. when it tried the case years ago. So, it can be averred
generally.
Sec. 9. Official document or act. In pleading an official document or
official act, it is sufficient to aver that the document was issued or the act
done in compliance with law. (9)

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA

143

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

2001 Edition

Rule 8 - Manner of
Making
Allegations in Pleadings

One can just plead the existence of a document made by the government. EXAMPLE:
official letter of the President, or official communication by a government agency. It is
sufficient to aver that the document was issued or an act done.
SUMMARY:
Q: What averment or allegations in pleadings may be done GENERALLY?
A: The following:
1.) Rule 8, Section 3 Conditions precedent;
2.) Rule 8, Section 5, 2nd sentence Conditions of the mind;
3.) Rule 8, Section 6 Judgment;
4.) Rule 8, Section 9 Official document or act
Q: What averments must be done with PARTICULARITY?
A: The following:
1.) Rule 8, Section 4, first sentence Capacity to sue and be sued;
2.) Rule 8, Section 4, 2nd sentence Legal existence of any party to sue or be sued;
3.) Rule 8, Section 5, first sentence Fraud or mistake
ACTIONABLE DOCUMENTS
Sec. 7. Action or defense based on document. Whenever an action or defense
is based upon a written instrument or document, the substance of such instrument
or document shall be set forth in the pleading, and the original or a copy
thereof shall be attached to the pleading as an exhibit, which shall be deemed
to be a part of the pleading, or said copy may with like effect be set forth in
the pleading. (7)

Not every document that is needed in trial is actionable document.

Q: What is an actionable document?
A: An ACTIONABLE DOCUMENT is one which is the basis or the foundation of the cause
of action or defense and not merely an evidence of the cause of action or defense.
(Araneta, Inc. vs. Lyric Film Exchange, 58 Phil. 736) It is the very heart and soul of your
cause of action or defense, not merely an evidence thereof.
So a promissory note to collect an unpaid loan is not only an evidence of you cause of
action but is it is the very cause of action or foundation of your cause of action. On the
other hand, when I have a receipt, the receipt is not only evidence of your defense but is
the very foundation of your defense. If I would like to sue you to annul a written contract,
the contract to be rescinded or annulled is the very cause of your action.
But in a collection case, if aside from promissory note I wrote you several letter of
demand to pay. Such letter while they are relevant to the collection case, that is not the
foundation of your cause of action, although they are also important.
Q: What is the purpose of the distinction between actionable and non-actionable
document?
A: If the document is not actionable, there is no need to follow Section 7. If it is
actionable, it must be pleaded in the manner mentioned in Section 7. Also in Section 8, it
is needed to contest the genuiness of the document.
Q: And how do you plead an actionable document under Section 7?
A: There are two (2) options:
1.) The substance of such instrument or document, shall be set forth in the pleading
and the original or a copy thereof shall be attached as an exhibit.
2.) The copy of the document may with like effect quoted in the pleading in which
case, there is no need to attach the copy.
In the first one, there is no need to copy it. Just mention the substance or features of he
promissory note. The entire document must be quoted in the pleading.

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA

144

Rule 8 - Manner of
Making
Allegations in Pleadings

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

2001 Edition

EXAMPLE:
PROMISSORY NOTE:

December 31, 1997

For value received, I promise to pay B P1 million not later than

one year from date with 2 percent per annum.
Signed: A

Q: Using the above promissory note, how should the pleading be worded?
A: Two ways of pleading of actionable document:
1.) The substance shall be set forth in the pleading and the original or a copy thereof
shall be attached to the pleading as an exhibit, which shall be deemed as part of
the pleading. Party simply cites only important parts of the document, then
attached the document.
EXAMPLE:

COMPLAINT

1. Plaintiff B is xxx of legal age xxx; Defendant A is xxxgayxxxx;

2. Sometime in December 31, 1997, defendant A secured a loan from
plaintiff B for a sum of P1 million payable not later than
December 31, 1998 with 2% interest per annum. Copy of said
Promissory Note hereto attached as EXHIBIT A;
3. The account is now overdue and despite demands of defendant A
still failed to pay B xxx.

So, the main features of the promissory note are recited in your pleading the
date when the loan was secured, the amount, the interest, etc. But still you have to
attach a copy of the promissory note, either xerox copy or the original.
2.) Said copy may with like effect be set forth in the pleading. Document is quoted
verbatim.
EXAMPLE:
COMPLAINT
1. Plaintiff B is xxx of legal age xxx; Defendant A is xxxgayxxxx;
2. On Dec. 31, 1997 def. A secured a loan from plaintiff B which is covered
by a promissory note worded as follows:

PROMISSORY NOTE:
December 31, 1997
For value received, I promise to pay B P1 million
not later than one year from date with 2 percent per
annum.
Signed: A
3. The account is now overdue and despite demands of defendant A
still failed to pay B xxx.

So, you copy the entire promissory note verbatim. There is no need to attach a copy of
the promissory note. That is the second way.
Now, if the document is not classified as actionable, then there is no need to follow
Section 7. Just imagine if you will apply Section 7 to all documents in your possession. If
you intend to present in evidence 50 documents and only one is actionable, ang 49 hindi,
so you will have 49 annexes. So, ang pleading mo, kakapal. (parang mukha mo!)

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA

145

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

2001 Edition

Rule 8 - Manner of
Making
Allegations in Pleadings

Q: Suppose in the first way, the promissory note was not attached. What will happen?
A: The party violates Rule 8, Section 7. The adverse party may move to dismiss the
complaint for violation of the rules, if such document could not be secured.
If an actionable document is properly pleaded in your pleading in the manner
mentioned in Section 7, the adverse party is now obliged to follow Section 8 if he wants to
contest such document.
Sec. 8. How to contest such documents. When an action or defense is founded
upon a written instrument, copied in or attached to the corresponding pleading
as provided in the preceding section, the genuineness and due execution of the
instrument shall be deemed admitted unless the adverse party, under oath,
specifically denies them, and sets forth what he claims to be the facts; but the
requirement of an oath does not apply when the adverse party does not appear to
be a party to the instrument or when compliance with an order for an inspection
of the original instrument is refused. (8a)

Q: Does every pleading have to be under oath?

A: GENERAL RULE: NO.
EXCEPTION: Except when the law requires it. Example: Section 8, Rule 8.
EXAMPLE: If the plaintiff sues you based on a promissory note which is properly
pleaded under Section 7 and you would like to contest the genuineness and due execution
of the note like when the figure was altered to P20,000 instead of P1,000 only, so there is
falsification, then you must deny the genuiness and due execution in your answer
specifically and most importantly your answer must VERIFIED AND UNDER OATH.
If the denial is not verified and under oath, the genuineness and due execution of the
promissory note is deemed admitted.
Q: When you say you have admitted the genuiness and due execution of the
document, what are the specific facts that you have deemed admitted?
A: The answer is found in the landmark case of HIBBERD vs. RHODE (32 Phil. 476):
1.) The party whose signature it bears signed it;
2.) If signed by another, it was signed for him and with his authority;
Q: Pretty Maya told Papa Paul that her housemate Sexy Regina wanted to borrow
money from him. Paul agreed. Maya signed the promissory note: Regina as
principal, signed by Maya. But actually, Regina never ordered Maya to use her
(Reginas) name. When the note fell due without payment, Paul sued Regina. Regina
denied agency but failed to verify her answer. What is the effect?
A: Pretty Maya becomes agent of Sexy Regina. So, the defense of unauthorized
signature is automatically out.
3.) 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;
Q: Mr. Quiachon sued Mr. Tiamzon to collect a loan of P50,000 on a promissory
note. Mr. Tiamzon admitted liability but only to the amount of P5,000. Mr. Tiamzon
used falsification as a defense but his answer was not verified. What is the effect?
A: Mr. Tiamzon admits the genuiness of the promissory note that it was really
P50,000.
4.) The document was delivered; and
5.) The formal requisites of law, such as seal, acknowledgement (notarization) or
revenue stamp which it lacks, are waived by it.
146
Property of LAKAS ATENISTA

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

2001 Edition

Rule 8 - Manner of
Making
Allegations in Pleadings

So kung may konting diperensiya like there is notarial seal, no acknowledgment,

no revenue stamp, all these defects are deemed cured.
The SC said in HIBBERD that if you admit the genuineness and due execution of the
actionable document, defenses which are inconsistent with genuineness and due
execution are deemed automatically waived. Meaning, any defense which denies the
genuineness or due execution of the document is deemed automatically waived.
Q: What are the defenses which are no longer allowed once you admit the genuineness
and due execution of the actionable document?
A: The following:
1.) The signature appearing in the document is a forgery;
2.) In case it was signed by an agent in behalf of the corporation or partnership, or a
principal, the signature was unauthorized;
3.) The corporation was not authorized under its charter to sign the instrument;
4.) The party charged signed it in some other capacity than that alleged in the
pleading; and
5.) It was never delivered. (Hibberd vs. Rhode, supra)
Q: Does it mean to say that when you admit impliedly the genuineness and due
execution of the actionable document, you have no more defense?
A: NO. What are no longer available are defenses which are inconsistent with your own
admission of the genuineness and due execution of the actionable document like forgery,
because you cannot admit that the document is genuine and at the same time allege that
it is forged. According to the SC in HIBBERD, you may still invoke defenses provided the
defenses are NOT inconsistent with your admission of the authenticity of the document.
Q: What defenses may be interposed notwithstanding admission of genuiness and due
execution of an actionable document as aforesaid?
A: In the case of HIBBERD, the following:
1.) payment;
2.) want or illegality of consideration;
3.) fraud;
4.) mistake;
5.) compromise;
6.) statute of limitation;
7.) estoppel;
8.) duress;
9.) minority; and
10.) imbecility
Now, if you do not verify you denial, there is already an advantage in my favor. So you
cannot anymore interpose the defense of for example, forgery because that is inconsistent
with your own admission of the genuineness and due execution of the actionable
document. But what if the you presented evidence to prove forgery? Can I waive the
benefit of implied admission?
Q: May the benefit of the admission of genuineness and due execution of an actionable
document? If so, in what instances?
A: YES. In the following cases, the implied admission is deemed waived:
1.) Where the pleader presented witnesses to prove genuiness and due execution
and the adversary proved, without objection, the contrary. (Yu Chuck vs. Kong Li
Po, 46 Phil. 608);
2.) Where the pleader fails to object to evidence controverting the due execution.
(Legarda Koh vs. Ongsiaco, 36 Phil. 185)

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA

147

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

2001 Edition

Rule 8 - Manner of
Making
Allegations in Pleadings

In other words, the lawyer of the defendant does not remember Section 8 and therefore
the denial is improper. But the lawyer of the plaintiff did not also remember Section 8 that
when there was evidence of forgery, he failed to object. So, the incompetence of the both
lawyers cancel each other. That is what happens if the lawyer does not know. Bobo!
Maayo pa ang bulalo, naay utok!
WHEN DENIAL NOT UNDER OATH STILL VALID
Q: When may a simple denial suffice? Meaning, what are the instances where the
denial of the genuineness of the document, which is not under oath, is valid?
A: Section 8 says, the requirement of an oath does not apply:
1.) When the adverse party does not appear to be a party to the instrument;
EXAMPLE: Ms. Guadalope filed a case against Ms. Castillo based on a contract
entered by them. But before Ms. Guadalope filed the case, Ms. Castillo died
(simba ko! tok-tok!). So Ms. Guadalope filed against the heirs. The heirs
realized that the signature of Ms. Castillo in contract as forged. Even if the
answer of the heirs is not under oath, they can still prove forgery because they
are not party to the instrument.
2.) When compliance with an order for an inspection of the original instrument is
refused;
3.) When the document to be denied is not classified as an actionable document but
merely an evidentiary matter. This is because when the document if not
actionable, there is no need to follow Section 7.
REPLY; GENERAL RULE: OPTIONAL; EXCEPTION: SECTION 8
Normally, the person who is presenting the actionable document is the plaintiff.
PROBLEM: But suppose it is the defendant who is invoking an actionable document for
his defense. He claims to have paid the loan and have attached a copy of the RECEIPT to
his answer. The plaintiff looks at the document and realizes that his signature in the
receipt is forged.
Q: What should the plaintiff do?
A: Based on Section 8, the plaintiff must deny the genuineness of the receipt
specifically under oath
Q: In what pleading should the plaintiff file where he will deny under oath the
genuiness and due execution of the receipt?
A: Plaintiff should file a REPLY and it must be under oath. If he will not file a reply, the
receipt is impliedly admitted to be genuine.
Q: But the plaintiff may argue that under Rule 6, Section 10 the filing of a reply is
optional. How do we reconcile it with Section 8?
A: Rule 6 is the general rule. Section 8 should prevail over Rule 6 because the former is
a specific provision that applies only to actionable document. It has been asked in the Bar:
Q: When is the filing of the reply compulsory?
A: When the defendant anchors his defense on an actionable document and plaintiff
will deny the genuineness and due execution of such document.
SPECIFIC DENIAL
We will relate Section 10 with Section 5 of Rule 6:

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA

148

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

2001 Edition

Rule 8 - Manner of
Making
Allegations in Pleadings

Sec. 5. Defenses. - Defenses may either be negative or affirmative.

a. A negative defense is the specific denial of the material fact or facts
alleged in the pleading of the claimant essential to his cause or causes of
action.
x x x

In an answer, defenses may either be negative or affirmative.

Q: Define negative defense.
A: Briefly, it is a defense of SPECIFIC DENIAL where the defendant denies the statement
in the complaint by stating the facts and the reason/s on which his denial is based.
Q: How is a specific denial done?
A: Rule 8, Section 10:
Sec. 10. Specific denial. A defendant must specify each material allegation
of fact the truth of which he does not admit and, whenever practicable, shall
set forth the substance of the matters upon which he relies to support his
denial. Where a defendant desires to deny only a part of an averment, he shall
specify so much of it as is true and material and shall deny only the remainder.
Where a defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of a material averment made in the complaint, he shall so
state, and this shall have the effect of a denial. (10a)

Q: So what are the modes of specific denial?

A: Under Section 10, there are three (3) MODES OF SPECIFIC DENIAL:
FIRST MODE: A defendant must specify each material allegation of fact the
truth of which he does not admit and, whenever practicable, shall set forth the
substance of the matters upon which he relies to support his denial

Meaning, you deny the allegation in the complaint but you must state the basis of your
denial that, that is not true because this is what is true. So you state your own side, your
own version. The purpose there is to lay your cards on the table to make it fair to the other
side. Yaan!
Q: What happens if a denial violates this first mode? Meaning, the pleader did not set
forth the substance of the matters relied upon to support his denial.
A: That is know was GENERAL DENIAL and it will have the effect of automatically
admitting the allegations in the complaint.
Q: Suppose the pleader will say, Defendant specifically denies the allegations in
paragraph 2,4,7 without any further support for the denial. Is the denial specific?
A: NO. A denial does not become specific simply because he used the word specific.
(Cortes vs. Co Bun Kim, 90 Phil. 167) What makes a denial specific is compliance with
Section 10.
SECOND MODE: Where a defendant desires to deny only a part of an averment,
he shall specify so much of it as is true and material and shall deny only the
remainder.

Sometimes an allegation may consist of 2 or more parts. Therefore the answer may
admit part 1 but part 2 is denied. Or, the substance of the allegation is actually admitted
by the qualification there is denied.
EXAMPLE: Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant is in possession of the property under
litigation in bad faith. Now, the defendant may admit that the property is in his
possession but he denies the qualification in bad faith possession is not in bad faith.
Based on that, the defendant should say, Defendant admits that portion of paragraph no.
2 that he is in possession of the property in question; but denies that he is a possessor in
bad faith or something to that effect.

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA

149

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

2001 Edition

Rule 8 - Manner of
Making
Allegations in Pleadings

Therefore, when you say I deny the entire paragraph when actually you are not
denying the entire paragraph but only the qualification, that is called a NEGATIVE
PREGNANT. Actually, in the legal point of view, what is only denied is the qualification to
the averment. The substance of the allegation is actually admitted.
THIRD MODE: Where a defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient
to form a belief as to the truth of a material averment made in the complaint,
he shall so state, and this shall have the effect of a denial

Meaning, I am not in a position to admit or to deny because I have no knowledge. How

can I admit or deny something which I do not know?
EXAMPLE: Plaintiff claims for moral damages because Defendant destroyed his
reputation. Defendant does not know that Plaintiff had sleepless nights, wounded feelings,
serious anxiety, etc. Here, Defendant cannot admit or deny those.
I have read pleadings where the pleader would say, Defendant has no knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation in paragraphs 6, 7, 8,
9 of the complaint and therefore he denies the same. Actually, there is something
wrong there. How can you deny something that you have no knowledge of. Just state, I
have no knowledge. Then period! And is has the automatic effect of a denial.
However, the SC warned that he third mode of denial should be done in good faith. If
the fact alleged is such that it is within your knowledge, it is impossible that it is not within
your knowledge, you cannot avail of the third mode of denial. Otherwise, if you will avail of
the third mode in bad faith, your denial will be treated as an admission. That is what
happened in CAPITOL MOTORS vs. YABUT (32 SCRA 1).
In CAPITOL MOTORS, suppose I file a case against you, Defendant borrowed money
from plaintiff in the sum of P10,000 payable one year from said date. And then you say, I
have no knowledge or information There is something wrong there. What you are trying
to say there is I do not know whether I borrowed money from you or not.
How can that be? It is either you borrowed money or you did not! That is why the SC
said in CAPITOL MOTORS, if you borrowed money, you say so. And if you did not, deny it.
And then I will allege there, The defendant have made partial payments. Then you will
say, I have no knowledge. My golly! You do not even know whether you paid me? In
other words, talagang evasive bah! You are trying to be clever and evasive. And if you do
that, all your denials will be treated as admissions. That is the warning in the third mode.
Sec. 11. Allegations not specifically denied deemed admitted. Material
averment in the complaint, other than those as to the amount of unliquidated
damages, shall be deemed admitted when not specifically denied. Allegations of
usury in a complaint to recover usurious interest are deemed admitted if not
denied under oath. (1a, R9)

While the law says material averment in the complaint, this rule extends to
counterclaims, cross-claims and third-party complaints. (Valdez vs. Paras, L-11474, May
13, 1959)
The reason for the rule on specific denial is that, if there is a material averment in the
complaint and was not specifically denied, it is deemed admitted. However under Section
11, there are averments in the complaint which are not deemed admitted even when not
specifically denied.
GENERAL RULE: Material averment in a complaint shall be deemed admitted when not
specifically denied.
EXCEPTION: Instances when averments in the complaint are not deemed admitted even
when not specifically denied:

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA

150

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

2001 Edition

Rule 8 - Manner of
Making
Allegations in Pleadings

1.) Amount of unliquidated damages;

2.) Immaterial averments (Worcester vs. Lorenzana, 56 O.G. 7932, Dec. 26, 1960)
3.) Evidentiary matters; because a party is only obliged to aver ultimate facts;
(Agaton vs. Perez, L-19548, Dec. 22, 1966)
4.) Conclusions of facts or law.
Lets discuss the first exception AMOUNT OF UNLIQUIDATED DAMAGES is not deemed
admitted even if not specifically denied. So if the damages are liquidated, they are
deemed admitted.
Examples of unliquidated damages are moral and exemplary
damages. Or expenses which I incurred in the hospital. Those are unliquidated damages.
They are always subject to evidence. You have to prove how much amount you are entitled
to. That is why they are not deemed admitted even if not specifically denied.
So if you are claiming P1 million damages for sleepless nights or besmirched
reputation, and I did not specifically denied such claim, it does not mean that you are
automatically entitled to P1 million. Hindi yan puwede. You have to present evidence that
you are really entitled to P1 million. Yaan!
On the other hand, an example of liquidated damages is an obligation with a penal
clause. For example in our contract, it is stipulated that in case you cannot comply with
your obligation, you will pay me P1 million. So if you failed to specifically deny it, then you
are deemed to have admitted that I am entitled to P1 million. There is no need for
computation because the amount is already in the contract beforehand. The contract itself
would show how much I am entitled.
Section 11 also says, Allegations of usury in a complaint to recover usurious interest
are deemed admitted if not denied under oath. Usury means you charge interest above
the legal interest provided by the usury law. If you want to deny my charge of usury, your
answer must be under oath. So, this is the second instance where a denial should be
verified.
NOW, I wonder why this provision is here when as early as 1983 in the case of LIAM
LAW vs. OLYMPIC SAW MILL (129 SCRA 439), that usury is no longer existing and the SC
stated in that case that the provision of the Rules of Court in usury are deemed erased or
superseded. Obviously, the SC forgot what it said in the 1983. (Ulyanin!!)
Sec. 12. Striking out of pleading or matter contained therein. Upon motion
made by a party before responding to a pleading or, if no responsive pleading is
permitted by these Rules, upon motion made by a party within twenty (20) days
after the service of the pleading upon him, or upon the court's own initiative
at any time, the court may order any pleading to be stricken out or that any
sham or false, redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter be
stricken out therefrom. (5, R9)

Before answering, the defendant can file a motion to strike out a pleading or a portion
of a pleading. Striking a pleading means that the pleading will be deemed erased as if it
was never filed. Or if a portion of the pleading be ordered stricken out or expunged where
a pleading or a portion thereof is sham or false, redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or a
scandalous matter is inserted in the pleading, is deemed erased. This is related to Rule 7,
Section 3, third paragraph:
RULE 7, Sec. 3. Signature and address. x x x x
An unsigned pleading produces no legal effect. However, the court may, in
its discretion, allow such deficiency to be remedied if it shall appear that the
same was due to mere inadvertence and not intended for delay. Counsel who
deliberately files an unsigned pleading, or signs a pleading in violation of
this Rule, or alleges scandalous or indecent matter therein, or fails to
promptly report to the court a change of his address, shall be subject to
appropriate disciplinary action.

So, if your pleading contains scandalous or indecent matters, the lawyer who files it
may be subjected to appropriate disciplinary actions.

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA

151

Rule 8 - Manner of
Making
Allegations in Pleadings

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

2001 Edition

Q: What if it is the reply is the one which contains scandalous matter?

A: A motion to strike may still be filed by the defendant within 20 days after the reply.

published by
LAKAS ATENISTA 1997 1998: FOURTH YEAR: Anna Vanessa Angeles Glenda Buhion Joseph Martin Castillo Aaron Philip Cruz
Pearly Joan Jayagan Anderson Lo Yogie Martirizar Frecelyn Mejia Dorothy Montejo Rowena Panales Regina Sison
Ruby Teleron Marilou Timbol Maceste Uy Perla Vicencio Liberty Wong Jude Zamora
Special Thanks to: Marissa Corrales and July Romena
SECOND YEAR: Jonalyn Adiong Emily Alio Karen Allones Joseph Apao Melody Penelope Batu Gemma Betonio Rocky
Cabarroguis Charina Cabrera Marlon Cascuejo Mike Castaos Karen de Leon Cherry Frondozo Jude Fuentes Maila Ilao
Ilai Llena Rocky Malaki Jenny Namoc Ines Papaya Jennifer Ramos Paisal Tanjili
LAKAS ATENISTA 20012002: REVISION COMMITTEE: Melissa Suarez Jessamyn Agustin Judee Uy Janice Joanne Torres
Genie Salvania Pches Fernandez Riezl Locsin Kenneth Lim Charles Concon Roy Acelar Francis Ampig Karen Cacabelos
Maying Dadula Hannah Examen Thea Guadalope Myra Montecalvo Paul Ongkingco Michael Pito Rod Quiachon
Maya Quitain Rina Sacdalan Lyle Santos Joshua Tan Thaddeus Tuburan John Vera Cruz Mortmort

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA

152