Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LAMBERTO SONGCO v. GEORGE C. SELLNER

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 180157 2012-02-08	EQUITABLE CARDNETWORK v. JOSEFA BORROMEO CAPISTRANO ABAD, J.
The RTC said that when an action is founded upon written documents, their genuineness and due execution shall be deemed admitted unless the defendant specifically denies them under oath and states what he claims to be the facts.[8] A mere statement that the documents were procured by fraudulent representation does not raise any issue as to their genuineness and due execution.[9] The RTC rejected Mrs. Capistrano's argument that, having verified her answer, she should be deemed to have denied those documents under oath. The RTC reasoned that she did not, in her verification, deny signing those documents or state that they were false or fabricated.
	GR NO. 143338 2005-08-29	CONSOLIDATED BANK v. DEL MONTE MOTOR WORKS CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Respondent's denials do not constitute an effective specific denial as contemplated by law. In the early case of Songco vs. Sellner,[26] the Court expounded on how to deny the genuineness and due execution of an actionable document, viz.: . . . This means that the defendant must declare under oath that he did not sign the document or that it is otherwise false or fabricated. Neither does the statement of the answer to the effect that the instrument was procured by fraudulent representation raise any issue as to its genuineness or due execution. On the contrary such a plea is an admission both of the genuineness and due execution thereof, since it seeks to avoid the instrument upon a ground not affecting either.[27]
	GR No. 143338 2005-07-29	CONSOLIDATED BANK v. DEL MONTE MOTOR WORKS CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Respondent's denials do not constitute an effective specific denial as contemplated by law. In the early case of Songco vs. Sellner,[26] the Court expounded on how to deny the genuineness and due execution of an actionable document, viz.:. . . This means that the defendant must declare under oath that he did not sign the document or that it is otherwise false or fabricated. Neither does the statement of the answer to the effect that the instrument was procured by fraudulent representation raise any issue as to its genuineness or due execution. On the contrary such a plea is an admission both of the genuineness and due execution thereof, since it seeks to avoid the instrument upon a ground not affecting either.[27]