GR 183034; (March, 2014) (Digest)
G.R. No. 183034 , March 12, 2014
SPOUSES FERNANDO and MA. ELENA SANTOS, Petitioners, vs. LOLITA ALCAZAR, represented by her Attorney-in-Fact DELFIN CHUA, Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Lolita Alcazar, proprietor of Legazpi Color Center (LCC), filed a complaint for sum of money against petitioners Spouses Fernando and Ma. Elena Santos to collect the unpaid value of paint and construction materials amounting to ₱1,456,000.00. The cause of action was based on an “Acknowledgment” document handwritten and signed by petitioner Fernando T. Santos, which stated he acknowledged an obligation of ₱1,456,000.00 to LCC. In their Answer, petitioners specifically denied paragraph 5 of the complaint (which referenced the Acknowledgment) by alleging the document did not reflect the true contract or intention of the parties and needed reformation to reflect the real indebtedness, which they claimed was only ₱600,000.00. The Answer was verified by Fernando T. Santos. After pre-trial and the presentation of respondent’s evidence, petitioners filed a Demurrer to Evidence, which was denied. The trial court subsequently denied petitioners’ motion to reset a hearing and declared they had waived their right to present evidence. The trial court then rendered a decision ordering petitioners to pay the amount stated in the Acknowledgment. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision.
ISSUE
Whether the genuineness and due execution of the “Acknowledgment” document were deemed admitted under the rules of court, given that petitioners, in their verified Answer, specifically denied the paragraph referencing the document but did not specifically deny the document itself under oath.
RULING
No. The rule that the genuineness and due execution of an instrument shall be deemed admitted unless specifically denied under oath applies only to parties to such instrument. Respondent Lolita Alcazar was not a party to the “Acknowledgment” document; it was signed only by petitioner Fernando T. Santos. Therefore, the rule on specific denial under oath did not apply to her. Consequently, the genuineness and due execution of the document were not deemed admitted. The Court of Appeals’ decision was set aside, and the case was remanded to the trial court to allow petitioners to present their evidence.