Title
Alemany vs. Sweeney
Case
G.R. No. 1403
Decision Date
Dec 29, 1903
Plaintiffs challenged defendant's answer for failing to deny factual allegations, deemed admitted under law; Court denied motion to strike, allowing trial on merits.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 1403)

Facts:

  • Case Background: This is an original action filed in the Supreme Court. The petitioners, Jose E. Alemany et al., filed a complaint against John C. Sweeney, the Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila.
  • Procedural History: A demurrer to the complaint was previously overruled, and the defendant filed an answer. The plaintiffs moved to strike out the defendant's answer, arguing that it neither admitted nor denied the facts set out in the complaint nor alleged any new facts.
  • Content of the Answer: The defendant's answer did not specifically deny any material allegations in the complaint. Instead, it primarily discussed legal questions without addressing the factual allegations.
  • Legal Provision Cited: Section 94 of the Code of Civil Procedure states that a material allegation in the complaint not denied in the answer is deemed admitted.

Issue:

  1. Whether the defendant's answer, which neither admits nor denies the facts in the complaint but instead discusses legal arguments, is valid.
  2. Whether the plaintiffs' motion to strike out the entire answer should be granted.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs' motion to strike out the defendant's answer. The Court held that the answer, by failing to deny the material allegations of the complaint, was deemed to have admitted those facts under Section 94 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Such a tacit admission is equivalent to an express admission. The Court also noted that the plaintiffs could have demurred to the answer under Section 99 but found it more expeditious to proceed to trial on the merits.

Ratio:

  1. Tacit Admission of Facts: Under Section 94 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a material allegation in the complaint that is neither generally nor specifically denied in the answer is deemed admitted. The defendant's answer, by not denying the facts, constituted a tacit admission of those facts.
  2. Relevance of the Answer: An answer that admits the facts in the complaint is relevant to the case and cannot be stricken out as irrelevant under Section 107 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
  3. Expediency in Litigation: The Court emphasized that when an answer fails to state a defense, the most efficient course of action is to proceed to trial on the merits, where the only issue would be whether the plaintiff is entitled to judgment based on the admitted facts.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.