GR L 9531; (May, 1958) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-9531; May 14, 1958
Warner Barnes and Co., Ltd., plaintiff-appellee, vs. Guillermo C. Reyes, et al., defendants-appellants.
FACTS
The plaintiff-appellee filed an action for foreclosure of mortgage on August 20, 1954, attaching the deed of mortgage as an annex to the complaint. After an extension, the defendants-appellants filed an answer on September 30, 1954, admitting only the paragraph identifying the parties. For the remainder of the complaint’s material averments, they alleged they were “without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth.” They also reserved the right to file an amended answer with special defenses and counterclaim. No amended answer was filed. The appellee moved for judgment on the pleadings on November 15, 1954, arguing the answer failed to tender an issue. The lower court granted the motion, holding that the appellants’ denial under the guise of lack of knowledge constituted a general denial, and rendered judgment for the appellee.
ISSUE
Whether an allegation of want of knowledge or information as to the truth of the material averments of a complaint amounts to a mere general denial warranting judgment on the pleadings or is sufficient to tender a triable issue.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision, holding that the appellants’ denial was insufficient and warranted judgment on the pleadings. The Court ruled that while Section 7, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court allows a defendant to state a lack of knowledge or information, which has the effect of a denial, this form of denial must be availed of sincerely and in good faith, not to confuse the adverse party or delay proceedings. In this foreclosure suit, the material allegations (existence of a debt, execution of a mortgage, partial payments, default) and the attached deed of mortgage were matters plainly within the appellants’ knowledge or readily accessible to them (e.g., by checking the Registry of Deeds). An unexplained denial of information on such matters of record is evasive and ineffective. The appellants’ failure to file an amended answer despite their reservation further indicated a lack of defense or an intent to delay. The Court cited the principle that a court is not bound to accept palpably untrue pleadings and that the rule on denials based on lack of knowledge does not apply where the facts are necessarily within the defendant’s knowledge.