G.R. No. 49255 ; September 18, 1944
MARIA BAETAMO, petitioner, vs. HON. AMADO P. AMADOR, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, LEON M. SAMSON, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Maria Baetamo, as special administratrix of the intestacy of Geronima Baetamo y Gonzales, filed three civil actions in the Court of First Instance of Manila against respondent Leon M. Samson (the surviving husband) and his co-respondents. The first two actions sought to annul sales of conjugal properties made by Samson to the other respondents, alleging the sales were fictitious and fraudulent. The third action aimed to prevent Samson from further disposing of conjugal properties to defraud the heirs. In each case, the defendants filed identical answers stating: (1) a specific denial of each and every allegation in the complaint, and (2) a reservation of the right to later file an amended answer containing special affirmative defenses and counterclaims. The cases were consolidated. The plaintiff then filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing the answers were mere general denials that constituted an implied admission of the complaint’s material allegations, citing El Hogar Filipino vs. Santos Investments, Inc. The respondent judge denied the motion, ruling the El Hogar doctrine was inapplicable because the answers here contained a reservation to amend and that pleadings should be liberally construed.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion for judgment on the pleadings, specifically: (1) whether the defendants’ answers constituted a general or specific denial under the Rules of Court, and (2) whether the reservation to file an amended answer had any legal effect.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the order, and issued a writ of mandamus.
1. The answers were general denials, not specific denials. Merely labeling a denial as “specific” while denying “each and every allegation” in a blanket manner does not make it a specific denial under Sections 6, 7, and 8 of Rule 9. A specific denial must deal specifically with each material allegation of fact and set forth the substance of the matters relied upon for support. The answers here, like the one in El Hogar Filipino, failed to specify the matters to be disproven, thereby not serving the purpose of limiting issues and avoiding unnecessary proof. Under Rule 9, Section 8, material averments are deemed admitted if not specifically denied.
2. The reservation to file an amended answer had no legal effect. There is no rule permitting such a reservation. A litigant cannot create a right by merely reserving it. Assuming an answer could be amended as a matter of course under Rule 17, Section 1, such amendment must be made within ten days after service of the answer, provided the case is not on the trial calendar. The defendants did not amend within this period. Therefore, the motion for judgment on the pleadings was proper.
The respondent judge’s refusal to apply the Rules and the controlling precedent (El Hogar Filipino) without a valid reason constituted a grave abuse of discretion, warranting the issuance of a writ of mandamus.