GR 101682; (December, 1992) (Digest)
G.R. No. 101682. December 14, 1992.
SALVADOR D. BRIBONERIA, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, GERTRUDES B. MAG-ISA, married to and assisted by PEDRO MAG-ISA, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Salvador D. Briboneria filed a complaint for Annulment of Document and Damages against respondent Gertrudes B. Mag-isa. He alleged he was the registered co-owner, with his wife Nonita, of a house and lot. He discovered that his wife had unilaterally sold the property to Mag-isa through a Deed of Absolute Sale, executed without his knowledge or consent. Briboneria claimed the sale was void and sought to recover the property and obtain damages.
During pre-trial, Briboneria’s counsel served a “Request for Admission” upon Mag-isa’s counsel, Atty. Alfredo A. Alto. The request sought admissions regarding the authenticity of documents and the truth of material facts, including the lack of Briboneria’s consent to the sale. Mag-isa failed to file a sworn reply to this request. Consequently, the trial court deemed all matters in the request as impliedly admitted under Rule 26 of the Rules of Court and rendered a summary judgment in favor of Briboneria, declaring the sale void.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court correctly deemed the matters in the Request for Admission as impliedly admitted due to service upon the adverse party’s counsel and the latter’s failure to respond.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ reversal of the summary judgment. The legal logic hinges on the proper mode of service for a Request for Admission under the then-governing 1964 Rules of Court. Rule 26, Section 1 explicitly required that the request be served upon “the other party,” not merely upon the party’s counsel.
The Court, citing the precedent in Republic v. Sandiganbayan, held that a request for admission must be served directly on the party whose personal acknowledgment of the facts is sought, not on their counsel. This is because an admission under this rule is a judicial admission binding on the party, constituting a waiver of proof. Since the request in this case was served only on Atty. Alto and not on respondent Mag-isa herself, there was no valid service. Therefore, Mag-isa’s failure to respond could not give rise to any implied admission. The summary judgment based on such invalidly procured admissions was correctly set aside. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.