Briboneria vs. Court of Appeals

A request for admission under Rule 26 of the Rules of Court is not a proper discovery device if it merely reproduces or reiterates the allegations in the pleadings, and such a request must be served directly upon the adverse party, not upon counsel, for a failure to answer to result in an implied admission.

Petitioner Salvador D. Briboneria filed a complaint for Annulment of Document and Damages against private respondent Gertrudes B. Mag-isa. He alleged that he and his wife were the registered owners of a parcel of land in Marikina. He claimed his wife, without his knowledge or authorization, executed a Deed of Absolute Sale conveying the property to Mag-isa. Mag-isa, in her answer, admitted the sale but contended the wife acted as the petitioner's attorney-in-fact pursuant to a Special Power of Attorney (SPA), and that the petitioner had knowledge and consent to the sale.

• Nature of the Action: Petitioner Salvador D. Briboneria filed a complaint to annul a Deed of Absolute Sale executed by his wife, Nonita A. Briboneria, in favor of private respondent Gertrudes B. Mag-isa, covering a conjugal property. He alleged the sale was unauthorized.
• Defense: Private respondent Mag-isa admitted the purchase but claimed it was valid, asserting that the petitioner's wife acted as his attorney-in-fact under a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) and that the petitioner had knowledge and consent.
• Request for Admission: After issues were joined, petitioner served a Request for Admission on private respondent's counsel, Atty. Alfredo A. Alto. The request contained 15 numbered items of "Material facts" and 2 items of "Material documents," which largely restated the allegations in the complaint and sought denials of the SPA's validity.
• Response and Motion: Private respondent filed an untimely, unsworn "Answer to Request for Admission," stating the matters were already addressed in her verified answer. Petitioner then moved for summary judgment, arguing an implied admission under Rule 26.
• Trial Court's Action: The RTC initially denied the motion, then granted reconsideration, but ultimately reversed itself and set the case for pre-trial, prompting the petitioner to seek certiorari from the CA.
• Appellate Court Ruling: The CA dismissed the certiorari petition, finding the request for admission improper as it merely reiterated the complaint's allegations.

• Propriety of Request: Petitioner argued that the material facts and documents in the request for admission were relevant evidentiary matters supportive of his cause of action, not mere reiterations of his pleading.
• Implied Admission: Petitioner maintained that private respondents impliedly admitted the facts and documents because they failed to answer the request within the prescribed period and the answer filed was not under oath.

• Improper Request: Respondent countered that the matters in the request for admission were already admitted or denied in her answer to the complaint, making the request improper and a mere reproduction of the pleadings.
• Invalid Service: Respondent argued that the request for admission was not validly served because it was served upon her counsel, not directly upon her as the party, as required by the Rules of Court.

• Propriety of Discovery: Whether the request for admission was a proper mode of discovery when it set forth matters already alleged in the complaint and answered in the responsive pleading.
• Validity of Service: Whether service of the request for admission upon the adverse party's counsel, instead of directly upon the party, is valid under the Rules of Court.

• Propriety of Discovery: The request for admission was improper. A request for admission is not intended to merely reproduce or reiterate the allegations of the requesting party's pleading. It should set forth relevant evidentiary matters of fact or documents whose purpose is to establish the cause of action or defense. Since the request merely reiterated matters already pleaded, it did not serve its proper discovery function.
• Validity of Service: The service of the request upon counsel was invalid. Section 1, Rule 26 of the Rules of Court requires that a request for admission be served "upon any other party." This mandates direct service on the adverse party, not on counsel. The general rule that service upon counsel is service upon the party does not apply to this specific mode of discovery, which operates extra-judicially. Consequently, the private respondent cannot be deemed to have admitted the matters for failing to answer an improperly served request.

• Scope and Purpose of Request for Admission — A request for admission under Rule 26 is a discovery mechanism designed to expedite trial by proving certain facts and documents, thereby narrowing the issues. It is not a tool to compel a party to admit or deny matters already squarely placed in issue by the pleadings. Its purpose is to establish evidentiary facts, not to rehash pleaded allegations.
• Service of Request for Admission — Strict compliance with the rule requiring service of a request for admission directly upon the adverse party, and not merely upon counsel, is mandatory. This specificity overrides the general rule on service of papers found in Rule 13. Failure to serve the request directly on the party renders it ineffective, and no implied admission can arise from a failure to respond to it.

• "A request for admission is not intended to merely reproduce or reiterate the allegations of the requesting party's pleading but should set forth relevant evidentiary matters of fact, or documents described in and exhibited with the request, whose purpose is to establish said party's cause of action or defense." — This passage defines the proper scope and limitation of a request for admission as a discovery tool.
• "Section 1 of Rule 26... which expressly states that 'a party may serve upon any other party a written request' should receive no other construction than that the request for admission must be served directly on the party and not on his counsel." — This excerpt establishes the strict interpretation of the service requirement for requests for admission.

• Po vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-34341, August 22, 1988, 164 SCRA 668 — Cited as controlling authority for the rule that a request for admission should not reiterate matters already admitted or denied in the pleadings.
• Ledesma, Jr. vs. Locsin (CA-G.R. No. 20561-R, Resolution dated June 1, 1963; affirmed by the Supreme Court in G.R. No. L-21715, October 2, 1963) — Cited as persuasive authority holding that a request for admission must be served directly on the party, not on counsel, for it to be valid. The Supreme Court's denial of the petition for review in that case was noted as affirming this principle.

• Section 1, Rule 26, Rules of Court — Provides that a party may serve upon any other party a written request for admission of relevant documents or facts. The Court interpreted this to require direct service on the party.
• Section 2, Rule 26, Rules of Court — Provides that matters in a request are deemed admitted if not answered within the prescribed period in a sworn statement. The Court found this rule inapplicable due to improper service.

• Justice Teodoro R. Padilla (Ponente)
• Justice Florenz D. Regalado
• Justice Carolina C. Griño-Aquino