You're currently signed in as:
User
Add TAGS to your cases to easily locate them or to build your SYLLABUS.
Please SIGN IN to use this feature.
https://www.lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c273b?user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09
[EL HOGAR FILIPINO v. SANTOS INVESTMENTS](https://www.lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c273b?user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09)
{case:c273b}
Highlight text as FACTS, ISSUES, RULING, PRINCIPLES to generate case DIGESTS and REVIEWERS.
Please LOGIN use this feature.
Show printable version with highlights

[ GR No. 48244, Jan 22, 1943 ]

EL HOGAR FILIPINO v. SANTOS INVESTMENTS +

DECISION

74 Phil. 79

[ G.R. No. 48244, January 22, 1943 ]

EL HOGAR FILIPINO, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. SANTOS INVESTMENTS, INC., DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

D E C I S I O N

OZAETA, J.:

Does a general denial fail to tender an issue so as to entitle the plaintiff  to a judgment on the pleadings? That  is the question raised herein for the first time under  the new Rules of Court.

Plaintiff is suing defendant for rents upon  two causes of action.  Under the first cause  of  action it is alleged that defendant occupied rooms 303 and 305 of the Crystal Arcade belonging to the plaintiff from  November  10, 1936, to September 30, 1939,  under  a  written contract of lease  at an agreed monthly rental of P260, but failed to pay the rents corresponding  to the months of February to September, 1939, inclusive, aggregating the sum of P2,080.  Under the second cause of  action it is alleged that defendant also occupied room  334  of the same building from May,  1937, to September, 1939, at  an agreed monthly rental of P95, but failed to pay  the rents corresponding to the months of January to September, 1939, inclusive, aggregating the sum of P855.

In its answer the defendant denied "generally and specifically each and every allegation contained in each and every paragraph of the complaint," and prayed  the court to dismiss the complaint with costs against the plaintiff.

Upon motion of the plaintiff and over  the objection of the defendant,  the  trial court rendered judgment on the pleadings  as prayed for in  the complaint; and from that the defendant appealed.

Section 6 of Rule 9 provides that the answer shall contain either a specific denial or  a  statement of matters in avoidance of the cause or causes of action asserted in the complaint; section 7 says that the defendant must deal specifically with each material allegation of fact the truth of which he does not admit and, whenever practicable, shall set forth the substance of the matters which he will rely upon to support his denial; and section 8 provides that a material averment in the complaint other than that as to the amount of damage,  shall  be deemed admitted when not specifically denied.  It will be  noted  that this  rule does away with a general denial,  in contrast  with section 94 of the former Code of  Civil Procedure  which expressly allowed it and provided that "a general denial only puts in issue the material allegations of the complaint."

Defendant's answer wherein it merely "denies generally and specifically each and every allegation contained in each and every paragraph of the complaint,"  is but a general denial.  It is not a specific denial under section 7 of Rule 9, because it does  not deal specifically with each material allegation of fact,  nor does it set forth the substance of the matters upon which the defendant relies  to support his denial.  It does not serve the purpose of requiring the defendant to make a specific denial, which is to compel him to specify the matters which he intends to disprove and disclose the matters upon which he relies to support his denial, thereby limiting the issues and avoiding unnecessary delays and surprises.  Under the old procedure the plaintiff was compelled by defendant's mere general denial to prove facts alleged in the complaint which the defendant did not  even attempt to dispute.  The new procedure does away with that unnecessary burden.  (Moran on the Rules of Court, volume 1, page 93.)

As a sanction to the provisions of sections 6, 7, and 8 of Rule 9 above cited, section 10 of Rule 35 provides that where an answer fails to tender an issue, or otherwise admits the material allegations of the adverse party's  pleading, the court may, on motion of that party, direct judgment on such pleading.  We find that the trial court has correctly applied this rule.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs. So ordered.

Yulo, C. J., Moran, Paras, and Bocobo, JJ., concur.

tags