Socorro Limos v Spouses Odones (G.R. No. 186979)

A request for admission is not intended merely to reproduce or reiterate the allegations but should set forth relevant evidentiary matters of fact described in the request.

FACTS:

Spouses Odones filed a complaint for Annulment of Title against Limos before the RTC in Camiling, Tarlac. The complaint alleged that they were owners of a parcel of land by virtue of an extrajudicial succession.

It took a while before the respondents decided to register the conveyance and when they did, they found out that the land’s OCT was replaced by a TCT in the name of Socorro Limos.

Limos allegedly secured the TCT by virtue of a sale executed by Donata Lardizabal and husband, Francisco Razalan.

Respondents sought the cancellation of the TCT on the grounds that the signatures of Lardizabal and Razalan were forged. The petitioners pleaded affirmative defenses in their Answer to which the respondents gave a Reply maintaining that the sale was valid.

Thereafter, the petitioners served upon respondents a Request for Admission of the following matters:

1. That the husband of the deceased Donata Lardizabal is Francisco Razalan;

2. That the children of the deceased Sps. Donata Lardizabal and Francisco Razalan are Mercedes Razalan, Tomasa Razalan and Tomas Razalan;

3. That this Tomasa Razalan died on April 27, 1997, and her heirs are (a) Melecio Partido surviving husband, and her surviving children are (b) Eduardo Partido, (c) Enrique Razalan Partido, (d) Eduardo Razalan Partido, (e) Sotera Razalan Partido and (f) Raymundo Razalan Partido.

4. That Amadeo Razalan is claiming also to be a grandchild and also claiming to be sole forced heir of Donata Lardizabal

5. That Amadeo Razalan is not among those who signed the Extrajudicial Succession of Estate and Sale;

6. That as per Sinumpaang Salaysay of Amadeo Razalan which was submitted by the plaintiffs, the children of Tomasa Razalan are Sotera Razalan and 2 brothers/sisters. These children of Tomasa Razalan did not also sign the Extrajudicial Succession of Estate and Sale;

7. That there is/are no heirs of Clemente Razalan who appeared to have executed the Extrajudicial Succession of Estate and Sale;

Petitioners failed to respond to this Request for Admission, prompting the filing of a Motion to Set for Preliminary Hearing and arguing that the failure of Respondents to object to the Request for Admission amounted to an implied admission pursuant to Rule 26, Sec 2 of the RoC. As such a hearing on the affirmative defenses had become imperative because petitioners were no longer required to present evidence on the admitted facts.

Respondents filed a comment on the Motion, contending that the facts sought to be admitted were not material and relevant to the case.

RTC -> denied the Motion and held that items 1-4 were already earlier pleaded as an affirmative defense, hence, it would be redundant for Respondents to make another denial.

CA -> dismissed the petition ruling that the affirmative defenses could be best proven by a hearing

So Petitioner’s seek for a Motion for Reconsideration of the CA’s decision.

ISSUE:

Whether or not a preliminary hearing on the affirmative defense is proper.

HELD:

NO. Under Rule 26, Sec 1 and 2: A party who fails to respond to a Request for Admission shall be deemed to have impliedly admitted all matters contained therein. It must be emphasized that the application of the rules on modes of discovery rests upon the discretion of the court. A request for admission is not intended merely to reproduce or reiterate the allegations but should set forth relevant evidentiary matters of fact described in the request.

Thus, if the trial court finds that the matters in the Request were already admitted then the requested party cannot be compelled to admit or deny them again. In turn the requesting party cannot reasonably expect a response  to request or even demand the application of the implied admission rule in Rule 26, Sec 2.

In the case, the redundant and unnecessary nature of the Petitioner’s Request  rendered it irrelevant so as to apply the implied admission rule. Since there is no implied admission attributable to the Respondent’s failure to respond, then the argument that a preliminary hearing is imperative loses its point.

---

*As to validity of the sale, Court held that it shall be determined in a full-blown trial. A preliminary hearing will not sufficiently address these issues.