December 1903 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1903 > December 1903 Decisions >
G.R. No. 1403 December 29, 1903 - JOSE E. ALEMANY, ET AL. v. JOHN C. SWEENEY
003 Phil 114:
003 Phil 114:
EN BANC
[G.R. No. 1403. December 29, 1903. ]
JOSE E. ALEMANY ET AL., Petitioners, v. JOHN C. SWEENEY, judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Respondent.
Ledesma, Sumulong, & Quintos, for Petitioners.
Antonio V . Herrero, for Respondent.
SYLLABUS
1. PLEADING AND PRACTICE; ANSWER; IRRELEVANCY; MOTION TO STRIKE OUT. — An answer which states some of the facts alleged in the complaint, denies none of them, and is devoted principally to a discussion of the questions of law involved in the case , will be construed as tacitly admitting all the allegations of the complaint, and a motion to strike out the whole answer as irrelevant will be denied.
2. ID.; ID.; ADMISSION OF FACTS ALLEGED IN COMPLAINT; DEMURRER; JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS. — When the answer tacitly admits the facts stated in the complaint the plaintiff may demur to the answer or move for judgment on the pleadings.
2. ID.; ID.; ADMISSION OF FACTS ALLEGED IN COMPLAINT; DEMURRER; JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS. — When the answer tacitly admits the facts stated in the complaint the plaintiff may demur to the answer or move for judgment on the pleadings.
D E C I S I O N
WILLARD, J. :
This is an original ac tion in this court in which a demurrer to the complaint having been overruled (1 Off. Gaz., p. 857), 1 the defendant has answered. The plaintiff now moves to strike this answer out on the ground that it neither admits nor denies the facts set out in the complaint, nor does it allege any new facts. An examination of the answer shows that it is open to the objections contained in the motion. It states some of the facts in the complaint, denies none of them, and is devoted principally to a discussion of the legal questions involved in the case.
Section 94 of the Code of Civil Procedure contains the following provision:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
". . . A material allegation of the complaint which is neither generally nor specifically denied in the answer shall be deemed to have been admitted."cralaw virtua1aw library
The answer in view of this provision must be construed as tacitly admitting all of the allegations of the complaint. Such a tacit admission is the legal equivalent of an express admission. An answer which contains an express admission of all the allegations of a complaint can not be stricken out as irrelevant under section 107 of the same code. Nothing could be more relevant to a suit than an admission of the facts stated in a pleading.
This is a motion to strike out the whole answer and not a part of it. It is not necessary to consider, therefore, whether that portion which contains the legal argument is subject to attack under said section 107.
The plaintiff might have demurred to this answer under section 99. But in this case, and generally in all cases when the answer states no defense, the most expeditious method would be to have the case placed on the calendar for trial on its merits. On such trial the only question for determination would be whether on the facts stated in the complaint the plaintiff was or was not entitled to judgment.
The motion is denied.
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Cooper, Mapa, McDonough and Johnson, JJ., concur.
Section 94 of the Code of Civil Procedure contains the following provision:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
". . . A material allegation of the complaint which is neither generally nor specifically denied in the answer shall be deemed to have been admitted."cralaw virtua1aw library
The answer in view of this provision must be construed as tacitly admitting all of the allegations of the complaint. Such a tacit admission is the legal equivalent of an express admission. An answer which contains an express admission of all the allegations of a complaint can not be stricken out as irrelevant under section 107 of the same code. Nothing could be more relevant to a suit than an admission of the facts stated in a pleading.
This is a motion to strike out the whole answer and not a part of it. It is not necessary to consider, therefore, whether that portion which contains the legal argument is subject to attack under said section 107.
The plaintiff might have demurred to this answer under section 99. But in this case, and generally in all cases when the answer states no defense, the most expeditious method would be to have the case placed on the calendar for trial on its merits. On such trial the only question for determination would be whether on the facts stated in the complaint the plaintiff was or was not entitled to judgment.
The motion is denied.
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Cooper, Mapa, McDonough and Johnson, JJ., concur.
Endnotes:
1. 2 Phil. Rep., 654.
