1997 Rules on Civil Procedure Rule 26 – Admission by

2001 Edition <draft copy. pls. check for errors> Adverse Party

Rule 26
ADMISSION BY ADVERSE PARTY

Rule 26 is also known as REQUEST FOR ADMISSION. Admission by adverse party or request for
admission is similar to interrogatories. You send questions to your opponent and he’s bound to answer
in writing within 15 days under oath but the framing of the questions are different.

In a request for admission, you are requiring the opposing party to admit the truth or authenticity
of certain documents. For example: “Do you admit the genuineness of the documents marked as Annex A?”
We are talking here of DOCUMENTS which are NOT ACTIONABLE because if the document is
actionable then it has to be pleaded properly.

In other words, if I have 20 documents, to find out whether you will admit them or not, I will send
you a copy and ask, “Do you admit the genuineness of this? Do you admit the truth?” [secreeet!]

So, the main difference between Rule 26 and Rule 25 is in the framing of the question. If the
question is framed in such a way that the premise is laid down and I ask you whether or not you admit,
then the question is proper under Rule 26. BUT if the question if framed in such a way that it is not
answerable by yes or no, then apply Rule 25.

Example: Suppose my question is like this – “who was with you?” That is proper under Rule 25.
Pero sabi ko, “A and B were with you, admitted?” That is Rule 26. Kaya nga the way the questions were
framed determines what kind of mode of discover are you going to apply.

Section 1. Request for admission. At any time after issues have been joined,
a party may file and serve upon any other party a written request for the
admission by the latter of the genuineness of any material and relevant document
described in and exhibited with the request or of the truth of any material and
relevant matter of fact set forth in the request. Copies of the documents shall
be delivered with the request unless copies have already been furnished. (1a)

Q: So, what will you request the other party to admit?

A: The genuineness of any material and relevant document described in and exhibited with the
request or of the truth in the request.

Q: When do you apply this mode of discovery?

A: “At anytime after issues have been joined.” Meaning, there is already an answer.

Q: Is LEAVE OF COURT required under Rule 26?

A: It is totally UNNECESSARY but a request for admission under Rule 26 can only be started
according to Section 1, “At any time after issues have been joined.” So it presupposes that there is already
an answer. Unlike in interrogatories, you can do it even before an answer is served provided there is
leave of court. This is the second difference between Rule 25 and Rule 26.

Sec. 2. Implied admission. Each of the matters of which an admission is

requested shall be deemed admitted unless, within a period designated in the
request, which shall not be less than fifteen (15) days after service thereof,
or within such further time as the court may allow on motion, the party to whom
the request is directed files and serves upon the party requesting the admission
a sworn statement either denying specifically the matters of which an admission
is requested or setting forth in detail the reasons why he cannot truthfully
either admit or deny those matters.
Objections to any request for admission shall be submitted to the court by
the party requested within the period for and prior to the filing of his sworn
statement as contemplated in the preceding paragraph and his compliance
therewith shall be deferred until such objections are resolved, which resolution
shall be made as early as practicable.(2a)

Q: So, if I send to you a request for admission, what is your duty?

Lakas Atenista 23
Ateneo de Davao University College of Law
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure Rule 26 – Admission by
2001 Edition <draft copy. pls. check for errors> Adverse Party

A: Within 15 days, you must answer my request under oath, whether admitting or denying my
request. Take note, ‘under oath’ also, parang interrogatories.

Q: Suppose you ignore my request within 15 days. You did not do anything. You did not bother to
file any answer to my request for admission. What is the effect of failure to answer the request?
A: You are deemed to have admitted. There is an implied admission of all the things that I asked
you to admit. Section 2 says, each of the matters of which an admission is requested shall be deemed
unless you file your answer to the request. Meaning, if you will not answer my request, under the law,
all the matters which I request you to admit are deemed impliedly admitted. That is the penalty for not
bothering to file your reply under Rule 26.

BAR QUESTION : A sends a request for admission to B and B made an admission. However,
during the trial, A did not offer in evidence the answers to the request. Can the court take judicial
notice of the answers?
A: Based on THE OLD RULES, it would seem NO because a request for admission is purely an
extrajudicial matter between the parties. But if the same question is asked,
NOW, the answer would be YES, because under the NEW RULES, you are already required to file
and serve. Therefore the court may now take judicial notice because it already forms part of the record.

BAR QUESTION: Suppose, I will file a case against you and I will attach to my complaint a
Promissory Note – actionable document. In your answer, you deny the genuineness and due execution of
the Promissory Note. Meaning, as a defense you allege that your signature is forged. There was a
proper denial because it was under oath.
After a week, I will now send to you a request for admission under rule 26, where I attach the same
promissory note, and I will ask you, “Do you admit the genuineness and due execution of this promissory
note?” Now, when you receive the request, you ignore it because you already denied the promissory
note under oath in your answer. So you argue, “Why do I have to deny it again under Rule 26 when I
already denied it under Rule 8? There is no need for me to deny it all over again.” I can also argue, “Even if
you denied it under Rule 8, under Rule 26 you are obliged to deny it all over again. Otherwise, you are deemed
to have admitted the genuineness and due execution of the document.” Who is right between the two of us?
ANSWER: There was an old decided case where the SC seemed to imply that even if the matter is
already denied in your pleading, if it is reiterated under Rule 26 (request for admission) it has to be
denied all over again otherwise you’re impliedly admitting it. To my mind, that is already answered in
the 1988 case of:

PO vs. COURT OF APPEALS

164 SCRA 668

FACTS: There was an allegation made by the plaintiff in his complaint which allegation
was specifically denied in the answer. Plaintiff asked the same question in a request for
admission. Inulit niya ang tanong and this time the defendant did not answer the request
for admission.
Now, under Section 2, if the party as requested to make an admission does not make so
within 15 days, the matter requested is deemed admitted - impliedly admitted - that is the
penalty.
If you do not want to respond to my request, everything that I requested will be
impliedly admitted. Now, you already denied the allegation in my complaint specifically in
your answer, I repeated it in a request for admission and this time, you failed to respond.
Now, under Rule 26, the plaintiff can claim, “Well, since you did not respond, then it is
already deemed admitted.” Suppose the other party would say, “No, I already denied that in my
answer. There is no obligation for me to the deny the same all over again under Rule 26.”

ISSUE: Is there a need for another denial in the request for admission?

HELD: NO NEED. When a matter is already effectively denied in the pleading, then
there is no need to ask it all over again. In other words, what has already been denied is
denied and therefore you cannot say that for failure to deny it is already deemed admitted.

Lakas Atenista 24
Ateneo de Davao University College of Law
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure Rule 26 – Admission by
2001 Edition <draft copy. pls. check for errors> Adverse Party

“A request for admission is not intended to merely reproduce or reiterate the allegations
of the requesting party’s pleading but should set forth relevant evidentiary matters of fact,
or documents described in and exhibited with the request, whose purpose is to establish
said party’s cause of action or defense. Unless it serves that purpose, it is pointless, useless,
and a mere redundancy.”

If we have to answer the same question under the ruling in PO, it would seem that the defendant is
correct. Why do I have to deny, if I have already denied it? So, there is no implied admission.

Sec. 3. Effect of admission. Any admission made by a party pursuant to such

request is for the purpose of the pending action only and shall not constitute
an admission by him for any other purpose nor may the same be used against him
in any other proceeding.(3)

Section 3 is for the purpose of evidence. An admission made by a party pursuant to a request for
admission in only good for that case. It cannot be used in any other case or proceeding. It limits
therefore the effectivity of an admission. It is only valid for the pending case.

Sec. 4. Withdrawal. The court may allow the party making an admission under
this Rule, whether express or implied, to withdraw or amend it upon such terms
as may be just. (4)

Admissions made, expressly or impliedly (failure or refusal to respond) are nevertheless binding.

Q: Is the party admitting allowed to withdraw, change or amend his previous admissions?
A: YES, but with leave of court.

Sec. 5. Effect of failure to file and serve request for admission. Unless
otherwise allowed by the court for good cause shown and to prevent a failure of
justice, a party who fails to file and serve a request for admission on the
adverse party of material and relevant facts at issue which are, or ought to be,
within the personal knowledge of the latter, shall not be permitted to present
evidence on such facts. (n)

This is one of the more controversial sections in the new Rules. This is a mandatory mode of
discovery. “A party who FAILS to FILE and SERVE a request for admission on the adverse party of material
and relevant facts in issue which are or ought to be within the personal knowledge of the latter shall not be
permitted to present evidence on such facts.” This is A VERY HARSH RULE – a new rule which again
shows the intention of the law to compel the lawyers to avail of the modes of discovery.

An example of the section: Let’s assume that there is a fact which I want to prove and I know that
you know but I do not know whether you’ll admit it or not. Under the rules, I have to send you a
request for admission to confirm it.

Suppose I do not send you a request because anyway there are very few lawyers who do that. So, I
did not send a request and then during the trial, I will just try to prove it. Then the adverse party says,
“Teka muna, what are you trying to prove? You should have sent me a request for admission.” And then you
say that you forgot to send one.

So, the adverse party here objects because he argues that I cannot present evidence to prove
something which he could have admitted in a request for admission. This is something which the party
could have admitted had I resorted to a request for admission under Rule 26, and since I did not, then
he can now prevent me from proving it.

Hence, this is a very dangerous provision. Though, we still have to see a judge applying this rule
because it is practically placing the other party in estoppel. Basically the argument will go like this:

NASTY MACK: “Why did you not send me a request for admission? Had you sent me,
I would have easily admitted that but since you did not, then I will bar you form
proving it.” (practically every fact aimed to be proved can be objected to

Lakas Atenista 25
Ateneo de Davao University College of Law
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure Rule 26 – Admission by
2001 Edition <draft copy. pls. check for errors> Adverse Party

BEN-DEATHA: “How could I have known what facts you will admit and not admit?”
NASTY MACK: “Precisely, that is why you should have sent me a copy, STUPID!”

See how dangerous this provision is? I can bar you from proving anything simply because you
failed to avail of the modes of discovery. This was not found in the Old Rules.

Generally, matters which are objectionable should be pushed by the party concerned or affected.
That is because it is for his benefit. I do not think it involves public policy that’s why even if you invoke
it, the court may still refuse to apply it. Look at the opening of the first paragraph: “Unless otherwise
allowed by the court for good cause and to prevent a failure of justice.” So that’s an exception.

So, even if you are correct, the judge may say that it’s too much. Even if you invoke it, the judge
may still say that there will be failure of justice if he will apply it. With more reason, no judge will use it
if you will not invoke it. It is practically barring the party from proving his case. That is why even if
you invoke this, judges are very careful not to apply this. So, you have to invoke this at least, to call the
attention of the judge though the judge may still refuse because there might be a failure of justice.

The only purpose I see for these is to compel the parties and lawyers to avail of the Modes of
Discovery.

Let’s go to some interesting cases on request for admission.

REBONERIA vs. COURT OF APPEALS

216 SCRA 627 [1992]

FACTS: A request for admission was sent by a party (Plaintiff) to the lawyer of the
defendant (because anyway, under Rule 13, the general rule is that everything should be
coursed through the lawyer) So, the request was sent to the lawyer. Since there was no
response, can there be an implied admission?

HELD: NONE. In a request for admission, since we are questioning the party, we should
address it to him, and not to the lawyer. A request for admission should be served upon the
party, not his counsel. The general rule under Rule 13 cannot apply where the law expressly
provides that notice must be served upon a definite person.
In such cases, service must be made directly upon the person mentioned in the law and
upon no other in order for the notice to be valid.

But the case of REBONIA should not be confused with the case of

PSCFC FINANCING CORP. vs. COURT OF APPEALS

216 SCRA 838 [1992]

FACTS : A request for admission was sent to a party. The party told his lawyer to
answer the request. So, it was the lawyer who answered the request for admission under
oath.

ISSUE: Was there an effective answer or reply to the request for admission as it was the
lawyer who made the reply ?

HELD : YES, because under the Rules, a client can always act through the lawyer and he
is bound by the actuations of his lawyer. This is practically the rule on Agency. If we will
say that the lawyer has no authority even if ordered by the client , then we are altering the
Rules on Agency and also the rule that the lawyer can always act in behalf of his client.

Lakas Atenista 26
Ateneo de Davao University College of Law
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure Rule 26 – Admission by
2001 Edition <draft copy. pls. check for errors> Adverse Party

And assuming that a lawyer is not authorized to make the complaint, then why is the
adverse party the one complaining? It is the client who has the authority to impugn the acts
of his lawyer and not the adverse party. Timang!!

Principles to remember in the case of REBONERIA and PSCFC:

1. A request must be directed to the party whose admission is sought. Service of request to any
other person is not a valid request at all.

2. A request must always be directed to the party whose admission is sought, but the latter may
delegate to his lawyer the right to answer the request. Such is valid so long as there is a valid
authorization.

Lakas Atenista 27
Ateneo de Davao University College of Law