When a Response to a Request for Admission Is Not Required: DBP v. Canadalla-Go

The Rules of Court allow a party to ask an opponent to admit certain facts or documents before trial—a process called a request for admission. If the other side fails to respond properly, those matters may be deemed impliedly admitted. But what happens when the request merely repeats what was already alleged in the complaint and denied in the answer? In Development Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals and Canadalla-Go (G.R. No. 153034, September 20, 2005), the Supreme Court clarified that a response is not always required—and that an unsworn response may sometimes be excused.

The Dispute Behind the Case

The case arose from a loan dispute. In 1977 and 1979, Irene Canadalla obtained loans from the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP), secured by real estate mortgages over several parcels of land. After she failed to pay, DBP foreclosed and bought the properties at auction. Canadalla redeemed one property but not the others. Her daughter, Rosalinda Canadalla-Go, later offered to redeem the remaining properties, but the parties disagreed on the redemption price. When DBP consolidated title over the properties, Go sued in the Regional Trial Court of Makati City.

Before trial, Go filed a request for admission under Rule 26, asking DBP to admit various facts and documents. DBP filed a comment responding to the request. Go objected, arguing that the comment was not under oath as required by the rules. The trial court agreed and declared the matters impliedly admitted. The Court of Appeals affirmed. DBP appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Issue

The central question was whether matters in a request for admission—which merely repeated allegations in the complaint that were already specifically denied in the answer—could be deemed impliedly admitted because the response was not under oath.

The Ruling: No Implied Admission

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of DBP, reversing the lower courts. The Court held that a request for admission that merely reiterates allegations already made in the complaint is inappropriate under Rule 26. Discovery is meant to clarify and shed light on the truth or falsity of allegations—not to force a party to repeat denials already made in its answer.

Citing Po v. Court of Appeals and Concrete Aggregates Co. v. Court of Appeals, the Court explained that a party should not be compelled to admit facts already admitted in its pleading, nor to make a second denial of those already denied. Since DBP's answer had already specifically denied the matters in the request, DBP did not even need to file a comment.

An Unsworn Response Is a Formal, Not Substantive, Defect

Even assuming a response was needed, the Court found that DBP's comment substantially complied with Rule 26. The comment either admitted or specifically denied the matters and stated reasons. The lack of an oath was a mere formal defect, not a substantive one, and could be excused in the interest of justice. The Court also noted that DBP later submitted a sworn affidavit incorporating its denials before the trial court issued its order—another act of substantial compliance.

Improper Subjects: Matters of Law and Opinion

The Court also addressed the content of the request. Some items Go asked DBP to admit were not facts but conclusions of law or opinions—for example, statements about what the law provides regarding redemption. Under Rule 26, a request for admission may only cover (1) the genuineness of relevant documents and (2) the truth of relevant matters of fact. Matters of law, conclusions, and opinions are improper subjects and cannot be deemed impliedly admitted.

Practical Takeaways

• A request for admission should not merely repeat the complaint. If the matters are already alleged in the complaint and denied in the answer, a response may not be required at all.
• An unsworn response may be excused. The lack of an oath is a formal defect. If the response otherwise admits or denies the matters specifically and states reasons, courts may treat it as substantial compliance.
• Only facts and document genuineness can be requested. Matters of law, conclusions, and opinions are improper subjects for a request for admission.
• Objections should be raised promptly. A party who believes a request is improper should object as soon as possible—ideally in its response and in court—to preserve the objection.
• Discovery aims to expedite, not delay. Courts will not apply the rules rigidly if doing so defeats substantial justice or encourages redundancy.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.