Case Summary (G.R. No. 2028)

Civil Procedure and Verified Denial

• Section 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure mandates a verified denial of the execution of the instrument in certain circumstances.
• This requirement does not extend to the denial of an indorsement on the instrument.
• The distinction is made between the primary instrument (the note) and the indorsement, which does not necessitate a sworn denial from the maker of the note.

Motion to Strike Out Answer

• The complaint asserted that the defendant executed a note and that the payee indorsed it to the plaintiffs.
• The defendant's answer included a general denial of all allegations.
• The court's decision to strike out the answer as sham was erroneous due to the absence of evidence presented by the plaintiffs to substantiate the indorsement claim.

Admission Through Denial

• The defendant's denial, as per Section 103, constitutes an admission of the execution of the note.
• The specific language used in the denial indicates uncertainty regarding the execution of the note, which does not fulfill the requirement for a verified denial.
• The defendant's assertion that he may have forgotten the execution of the note does not negate the obligation to provide a sworn denial.

Court's Ruling and Error Analysis

• The court below struck out the defendant's answer based on the provisions of Section 107 of the Code of Civil Procedure, leading to a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.
• The material allegations of the complaint included the execution of the note, the indorsement to the plaintiffs, and the nonpayment.
• The plaintiffs failed to provide evidence supporting the indorsement, making the court's action to strike the answer inappropriate.

Distinction Between Note and Indorsement

• The court clarified that the action was based on the promissory note itself, not the indorsement.
• The indorsement does not impose liability on the defendant, and thus, the defendant was not required to deny the indorsement under oath.
• The rationale is that the defendant is expected to know whether he ...continue reading

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 2028)

Case Overview

• This case involves an appeal by Henry M. Jones, the defendant-appellant, against a judgment made in favor of C. Heinszen & Co., the plaintiffs-appellees.
• The central issue revolves around the validity of the defendant's answer to the complaint concerning the execution of a promissory note.

Background of the Case

• The defendant, Henry M. Jones, provided an answer to the complaint that denied all allegations, including the execution of the promissory note, and claimed a lack of recollection regarding the matter.
• He stated that if he had indeed executed the promissory note, he had completely paid it off and owed nothing to the plaintiffs.
• The plaintiffs, C. Heinszen & Co., moved to strike this answer, leading to a judgment in their favor without a hearing on the merits of the case.

Legal Proceedings

• The lower court struck out the defendant's answer as "sham" based on Section 107 of the Code of Civil Procedure and entered a judgment for the plaintiffs.
• The defendant excepted to both the judgment and the order striking out the answer, and subsequently brought the case to a higher court via a bill of exceptions.

Key Al...continue reading