Sps Villuga Et Al Vs Kelly

Sps Villuga et al vs Kelly
G.R. No. 176570
July 18, 2012
Defendant: SPOUSES RAMON VILLUGA and MERCEDITA

VILLUGA
Plaintiff: KELLY HARDWARE AND CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY
INC., represented by ERNESTO V. YU, Executive Vice-President
and General Manager.
Topic: Rule 35; Complaint for a Sum of Money and Damages;

Request for Admission;
- Not because there was an admission but because there was

no genuine issue.
Facts:
On March 3, 1995, herein plaintiff filed with the RTC of Bacoor,

Cavite a Complaint for a Sum of Money and Damages against
herein defendants alleging that the latter failed and refused to pay
for the construction materials they bought from the plaintiff despite
of several oral and written demands.
Defendants, in their answer, admitted having made purchases

from plaintiff, but alleged that they do not remember the exact
amount thereof as no copy of the documents evidencing the
purchases were attached to the complaint.
Defendants, nonetheless, claimed that they have made payments

to the plaintiff in the amounts of P110,301.80 and P20,000.00,
respectively, and they are willing to pay the balance of their
indebtedness after deducting the payments made and after
verification of their account.
Plaintiff, in its counter manifestation, signified that it was
amenable to defendants’ offer to pay the principal amount of
P259,809.50. However, plaintiff insisted that defendants should
also pay interests, as well as litigation expenses and attorney's
fees, and all incidental expenses.
Subsequently, plaintiff filed a Motion for Partial Judgment on the

Pleadings contending that defendants were deemed to have
admitted in their Answer that they owed plaintiff the amount of
P259,809.50 when they claimed that they made partial payments
amounting to P130,301.80. Based on this premise, plaintiff prayed
that it be awarded the remaining balance of P129,507.70.
Defendants filed their Opposition to the said Motion.
the RTC issued an Order deferring resolution of Plaintiff’s Motion

for Partial Judgment on the ground that there is no clear and
specific admission on the part of defendants as to the actual
amount that they owe plaintiff.
Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, with leave of court, alleging

that defendants purchased from it various construction materials
and supplies, the aggregate value of which is P279,809.50; that
only P20,000.00 had been paid leaving a balance of P259,809.50.
In their Answer to Amended Complaint, defendants reiterated

their allegations in their Answer to Complaint.
plaintiff filed a Request for Admission asking that defendants

admit the genuineness of various documents, such as statements
of accounts, delivery receipts, invoices and demand letter
attached thereto as well as the truth of the allegations set forth
therein.
plaintiff basically asked defendants to admit that the latter's
principal obligation is P279,809.50 and that only P20,000.00 was
paid.
defendants filed a Manifestation and Motion before the RTC

praying that since defendants failed to timely file their comment to
the Request for Admission, they be considered to have admitted
the genuineness of the documents described in and exhibited with
the said Request as well as the truth of the matters of fact set
forth therein, in accordance with the Rules of Court.
defendants filed their Comments on the Request for

Admission stating their objections to the admission of the
documents attached to the Request.
plaintiff filed its Second Amended Complaint, again with leave of

court. The amendment modified the period covered by the
complaint. The amendment also confirmed defendant’s partial
payment in the sum of P110,301.80 but alleged that this payment
was applied to other obligations which defendants owe plaintiff.
plaintiff reiterated its allegation that, despite defendants partial
payment, the principal amount which defendant owe remains
P259,809.50.
Defendants filed their Answer to the Second Amended

Complaint denying the allegations therein and insisting that they
have made partial payments.
Plaintiff filed a Motion to Expunge with Motion for Summary

Judgment which was thereafter granted by the trial court.
defendants filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but it was denied

by the RTC.
Unyielding, defendants filed an appeal with the CA.
The CA affirmed the Orders of the RTC.

Defendants Motion for Reconsideration was subsequently denied
by the CA.
Issue:
1. WON there was an implied admission by the defendant.
Ruling:
None.
A careful examination of the said Request for Admission shows

that the matters of fact set forth therein are simply a reiteration of
plaintiff’s main allegation in its Amended Complaint and that
defendants had already set up the affirmative defense of partial
payment with respect to the above allegation in their previous
pleadings.
This Court has 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, the required
party cannot be compelled to deny them anew.
The foregoing notwithstanding, the Court finds that the CA was

correct in sustaining the summary judgment rendered by the RTC.
when plaintiff subsequently filed its Second Amended Complaint

admitting therein that defendants, indeed, made partial payments
of P110,301.80 and P20,000.00, Nonetheless, plaintiff accounted
for such payments by alleging that these were applied to
defendant’s obligations which are separate and distinct from the
sum of P259,809.50 being sought in the complaint. This allegation
was not refuted by defendants in their Answer to Second
Amended Complaint. Rather, they simply insisted on their
defense of partial payment while claiming lack of knowledge or
information to form a belief as to the truth of plaintiff’s allegation
that they still owe the amount of P259,809.50 despite their
payments of P110,301.80 and P20,000.00.
It is settled that the rule authorizing an answer to the effect that

the defendant has no knowledge or information sufficient to form
a belief as to the truth of an averment and giving such answer the
effect of a denial, does not apply where the fact as to which want
of knowledge is asserted, is so plainly and necessarily within the
defendant’s knowledge that his averment of ignorance must be
palpably untrue.
In the instant case, it is difficult to believe that defendants do not

know how their payment was applied. Instead of denying
knowledge, defendants could have easily asserted that their
payments of P110,301.80 and P20,000.00 were applied to, and
should have been deducted from, the sum sought to be recovered
by plaintiff, but they did not, leading the court to no other
conclusion than that these payments were indeed applied to their
other debts to plaintiff leaving an outstanding obligation of
P259,809.50.
On the basis of the foregoing, defendant’s defense of partial

payment in their Answer to Second Amended Complaint, in effect,
no longer raised genuine issues of fact that require presentation
of evidence in a full-blown trial. Hence, the summary judgment of
the RTC in favor of plaintiff is proper.
Doctrines:
Summary judgment is a procedural device resorted to in order to

avoid long drawn out litigations and useless delays. Such
judgment is generally based on the facts proven summarily by
affidavits, depositions, pleadings, or admissions of the parties.

Sps Villuga Et Al Vs Kelly

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sps Villuga Et Al Vs Kelly

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sps Villuga Et Al Vs Kelly

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sps Villuga et al vs Kelly

G.R. No. 176570

July 18, 2012

Defendant: SPOUSES RAMON VILLUGA and MERCEDITA

Topic: Rule 35; Complaint for a Sum of Money and Damages;

- Not because there was an admission but because there was

On March 3, 1995, herein plaintiff filed with the RTC of Bacoor,

Defendants, in their answer, admitted having made purchases

Defendants, nonetheless, claimed that they have made payments

Subsequently, plaintiff filed a Motion for Partial Judgment on the

Defendants filed their Opposition to the said Motion.

the RTC issued an Order deferring resolution of Plaintiff’s Motion

Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, with leave of court, alleging

In their Answer to Amended Complaint, defendants reiterated

plaintiff filed a Request for Admission asking that defendants

defendants filed a Manifestation and Motion before the RTC

defendants filed their Comments on the Request for

plaintiff filed its Second Amended Complaint, again with leave of

Defendants filed their Answer to the Second Amended

Plaintiff filed a Motion to Expunge with Motion for Summary

defendants filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but it was denied

Unyielding, defendants filed an appeal with the CA.

The CA affirmed the Orders of the RTC.

1. WON there was an implied admission by the defendant.

A careful examination of the said Request for Admission shows

The foregoing notwithstanding, the Court finds that the CA was

when plaintiff subsequently filed its Second Amended Complaint

It is settled that the rule authorizing an answer to the effect that

In the instant case, it is difficult to believe that defendants do not

On the basis of the foregoing, defendant’s defense of partial

Summary judgment is a procedural device resorted to in order to

You might also like