Facts:

• Plaintiffs: Leopoldo Sy-Quia, Hector Moreno, Alejandro de Santos, Pedro Aguirre, and Hans Inhelder.
• Defendants: Mary Marsman, A.L. Velilla, A.V. Santiago, E.G. Vito, and H.A. Doornbosch.
• Residency: Plaintiffs and defendants were residents of Rizal, except for Sy-Quia and Doornbosch, who resided in Manila.
• Corporation: Marsman Investments, Ltd. (organized under UK law, with offices in London and Makati, Rizal).
• December 29, 1960: Plaintiffs were elected directors at the annual and extraordinary general meetings.
• January 4, 1961: Plaintiffs held an organizational meeting and demanded turnover of offices and records from defendants.
• Defendants' Response: Refused to comply; plaintiffs filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Rizal.
• Defendants' Defense: General denials and motion to dismiss citing pending actions involving the same parties/issues.
• CFI Ruling: Denied motion to dismiss; ruled in favor of plaintiffs, declaring them duly elected directors and ordering turnover of records.
• Appeal: Defendants appealed the decision.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

1. No, the defendants' general denials did not constitute a valid defense under the Rules of Court.
...(Unlock)

Ratio:

• Defendants' Answer: Consisted of general denials, failing to meet specific denial requirements under the Rules of Court.
• Specific Denials Requirement: Section 10 of the Revised Rules of Court mandates specific denials with substance to support them.
• Defendants' Failure: Failed to specify which allegations they were denying (e.g., annual meeting, election of plaintiffs, compliance with British laws).
• General Denials: Operated as admissions of the facts pleaded by the plaintiffs.
• Plea of Lack of Knowledge: Deemed insincere and made in bad faith (e.g., denial of presence at Marsman Building on January 4, 1961).
• Defendants' Strategy: To confuse and delay plaintiffs, violating the policy...continue reading