GR L 10579; (March, 1958) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-10579; March 22, 1958
ELIZABETH CONSTANTINO, minor, represented by her mother LOURDES HISOLA, guardian ad litem and LOURDES HISOLA, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners Elizabeth Constantino (represented by her mother Lourdes Hisola) and Lourdes Hisola filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Manila. They alleged that Elizabeth was the offspring of illicit relations between Casimiro Constantino and Lourdes, and sought support and damages. Casimiro denied these allegations in his answer. The trial court ruled in favor of petitioners, declaring Elizabeth an illegitimate child of Casimiro and ordering him to pay support in arrears, a monthly allowance, damages, and attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, finding no evidence to prove that Elizabeth is Casimiro’s illegitimate child. The appellate court noted that Lourdes’s statement identifying Casimiro as the father was gratuitous without proof of illicit relations. Petitioners now seek certiorari, contending that Casimiro’s answer constituted only a general denial, which should be deemed an admission of the alleged illicit relations.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the complaint on the ground that Casimiro Constantino’s denial in his answer to the allegations of illicit relations and paternity was merely a general denial, which under the rules should be deemed an admission.
RULING
No, the Court of Appeals did not err. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. Casimiro’s answer was not a general denial but a substantial compliance with the rules on specific denial. Under Rule 9, Section 7, a defendant must deal specifically with each material allegation of fact not admitted. Casimiro’s answer specifically admitted or denied each material allegation, contained affirmative defenses, and a counterclaim. Regarding paragraphs 4 and 5 of the complaint (alleging cohabitation and conception), the answer specifically stated, “That defendant DENIES the averment contained in Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the complaint.” This was a sufficient specific denial since each paragraph contained only one material allegation. The Court noted that the plaintiff was not taken by surprise, as she presented evidence on the issue at trial, but such evidence was found insufficient. The petitioners could not remedy this deficiency by resorting to a technicality on the form of the denial.