Capitol Motors vs.

Yabut
GR No. L-28140 Ruling:

PLAINTIFF: Capitol Motors Corporation The SC agrees with the defendant that one of the modes of specific denial
DEFENDANT: Nemesio Yabut contemplated in Section 10, Rule 8 is a denial by stating that the defendant is without
DATE: March 19, 1970 knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of a material
PONENTE: J. Villamor averment in the complaint.
TOPIC:
HOWEVER, in the defendant’s answer (par2) does not constitute such denial.
TYPE OF CASE:
VENUE: The rule authorizing an answer to the effect that the defendant has no knowledge or
CAUSE OF ACTION: information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of an averment and giving such
RESOLUTION: Petition, granted. answer the effect of a denial, does not apply where the fact as to which want of
knowledge is asserted, is so plainly and necessarily within the defendant’s knowledge
Facts: that his averment if ignorance must be palpably untrue. [Warner Barnes vs Reyes]
 Capitol Motors filed a complaint against Yabut
 That Yabut executed a PN in favor of Capitol Motors for 30k payable in [It does not take effect wherein if the suit is founded upon the signed document]
18months that if he fails 2 successive installments, the principal remaining
sum would become due and demandable, including other fees and accrue In the case at bar, the PN sued upon was attached to the complaint.
interests
 Yabut defaulted 2 successive payments but despite demands, in spite Mere allegation of ignorance of the facts alleged in the complaint, is insufficient to
demands the defendants failed and refused to pay the said principal sum raise an issue
and interest due  The defendant must aver positively or state how it is that he is ignorant of
 Capitol Motors filed for a motion for judgment on the pleadings, that the the facts so alleged
defendant did not have in his answers support for his denial
o Defendant failed to deny specifically the material allegations of
the complaint – must deemed to have admitted them 2 other reasons why the present appeal must fail:
o Defendant did not file any opposition to the motion 1. The present action is founded upon a written instrument attached to the
o Court granted Capitol Motor’s prayer complaint
 Defendant filed a complaint that the court was incorrect for in considering o Bu the defendant failed to deny under oath the genuineness and
him as having failed to deny specifically the material allegations of the due execution of the instrument – same are deemed admitted
complaint – and deciding the case on the basis of the pleadings 2. Defendant did not oppose the motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by
o That there are 3 modes of specific denial as recognized in Section the plaintiff, neither has he filed a motion for reconsideration of the order
10, Rule 8 which deemed the case submitted for decision on the pleadings of of the
1. By specifying each material allegation of fact in the complaint the decision rendered
truth of which the defendant does not admit and whenever
practicable, setting forth the substance of the matters which he
will rely upon to support his denial
2. By specifying so much averment in the complaint as is true and
material and denying only the remainder
3. By stating that the defendant is without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of a material averment in
the complaint, which haw the effect of a denial
o That he has adopted the 3rd mode of specific denial – his answer
tendered an issue and consequently the court could not render a
valid judgment on the pleadings

Issue: W/N defendant’s denial constitutes a specific denial under Section 10, Rule 8,
NO