The requirement of Section 1 of Rule 36 would only apply if the demurrer is

The requirement of section 1 of rule 36 would only

This preview shows page 4 - 6 out of 23 pages.

The requirement of Section 1 of Rule 36 would only apply if the demurrer is granted, for in this event, there would in fact be an adjudication on the merits of the case. A denial of the demurrer is not a final judgment , but merely interlocutory in character as it does not finally dispose of the case, the defendant having yet the right to present his evidence. The challenged order being merely an interlocutory order and not a final judgment or decision, no abuse of discretion was committed by Comelec in its failure to state the facts and the law on which its order denying petitioners’ demurrer to evidence is based.
Image of page 4
CASENT REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORP., Petitioner, versus PHILBANKING CORPORATION, Respondent. G.R. No. 150731 | 2007-09-14 (Failure of plaintiff to deny genuineness and due execution of a document constitutes judicial admission) Facts: Casent Realty Developmet Corp. executed two promissory notes in favor of Rare Realty. These promissory notes were used by Rare Realty as a security for a loan that Rare Realty obtained from Philbanking wherein a Deed of Assignment was executed. When Rare Realty failed to pay its debt, the bank went after the security of the loan. The bank demanded payment based on the promissory notes issued by Casent Realty Corp to Rare Realty by virtue of the deed of assignment. On a separate loan with Philbanking, Casent Realty satisfied its obligation by executing a Dacion en pago. Philbanking filed for a complaint for the collection of payment against Casent based on the promissory notes. Casent Realty, in its answer, raised that a Dacion en pago was already executed which extinguished its obligation. Philbanking failed to file a reply. Casent Realty points out that the defense of Dacion and Confirmation Statement, which were submitted in the Answer, should have been specifically denied under oath by respondent in accordance with Rule 8, Section 8 of the Rules of Court. It’s failure constituted an admission on the part of the bank. Philbanking claimed that even though it failed to file a Reply, all the new matters alleged in the Answer are deemed controverted anyway, pursuant to Rule 6, Section 10: Section 10. Reply.--A reply is a pleading, the office or function of which is to deny, or allege facts in denial or avoidance of new matters alleged by way of defense in the answer and thereby join or make issue as to such new matters. If a party does not file such reply, all the new matters alleged in the answer are deemed controverted. Issue: Whether or not failure to file a Reply and deny the Dacion and Confirmation Statement under oath constitute a judicial admission of the genuineness and due execution of these documents Held: Yes. Since respondent failed to file a Reply, in effect, respondent admitted the genuineness and due execution of said documents. This judicial admission should have been considered by the appellate court in resolving the demurrer to evidence. Rule 129, Section 4 of the Rules of Court provides: Section 4. Judicial admissions.--An admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the course of the
Image of page 5
Image of page 6

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 23 pages?

  • Spring '16
  • Ms. Eva hernandez
  • Pleading, Appellate court

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture