G.R. No.

176570               July 18, 2012

SPOUSES RAMON VILLUGA and MERCEDITA VILLUGA, Petitioners,

vs.
KELLY HARDWARE AND CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY INC., represented by ERNESTO V. YU,
Executive Vice-President and General Manager, Respondent

Facts:

Spouses Villuga made purchases of various construction materials from Kelly Hardware in the sum of
P259k, which has not been paid. Kelly Hardware made several demands from the spouses, but the
latter failed to pay. Eventually, Kelly Hardware filed with the RTC of Bacoor, Cavite a Complaint for a
Sum of Money and Damages. Besides the principal obligation, the hardware store also sought the
spouses to pay for the suit.

In their Answer to the Complaint, the spouses admitted that they have made the purchases. They
claim that they made payments to the respondent in the total amount of P130k, and that they are
willing to pay the balance only after deducting the payments made and after verification of their
account.

Respondent filed an Amended Compliant adding that only P20k had been paid from the principal
obligation leaving a balance of P259k. It filed a Request for Admission asking the spouses to admit
that the latter’s obligation is P279k and that only P20k was paid. Spouses failed to reply.

After some time, the respondent again filed a Second Amended Complaint that confirmed petitioners'
partial payment in the sum of P110K, but alleged that this payment was applied to other obligations
which petitioners owe respondent. Respondent reiterated its allegation that, despite
petitioners' partial payment, the principal amount which petitioners owe remains P259K.

Upon the failure to reply to the Request for Admission by the spouses, the respondent filed a Motion
to Expunge with Motion for Summary Judgment claiming that petitioners were deemed to
impliedly admit the matters subject of the said request. Respondent also contended that it is
already entitled to the issuance of a summary judgment in its favor as petitioners not only failed to
tender a genuine issue as to any material fact but also did not raise any special defenses, which could
possibly relate to any factual issue.

RTC granted the respondent’s Motion. The CA affirmed.

Issue: WON the summary judgment against the spouses Villuga is proper.

Ruling: Yes. The Decisions of the RTC and CA are affirmed.

On Rule 10 (Section 8): The Court agrees with the CA in holding that respondent's Second Amended
Complaint supersedes only its Amended Complaint and nothing more. From the foregoing, it is clear
that Kelly Hardware's Request for Admission is not deemed abandoned or withdrawn by the filing of
the Second Amended Complaint.

The Court holds that by reason of the belated filing of petitioners' Comments on the Request for
Admission, they are deemed to have impliedly admitted that they are indebted to respondent in the
amount of P259k.
On Rule 26 (Section 2): This Court has ruled that if the factual allegations in the complaint are the
very same allegations set forth in the request for admission and have already been specifically
denied, the required party cannot be compelled to deny them anew. A request for admission that
merely reiterates the allegations in an earlier pleading is inappropriate under Rule 26 of the ROC. The
party being requested should file an objection to the effect that the request for admission is improper
and that there is no longer any need to deny anew the allegations contained therein considering that
these matters have already been previously denied.

On Rule 35 (Sections 1 and 3): The Court finds that the CA was correct in sustaining the
summary judgment rendered by the RTC in accordance with Sections 1 and 3, Rule 35 of the ROC.
When respondent subsequently filed its Second Amended Complaint, it admitted therein that
petitioners made partial payments of P110k and P20k. Nonetheless, respondent accounted for
such payments by alleging that these were applied to petitioners' obligations which are separate
and distinct from the sum of P259k being sought in the complaint. This allegation was not
refuted by petitioners in their Answer to Second Amended Complaint. This lead the court to no other
conclusion than that payments made by the spouses were indeed applied to their other debts to
respondent leaving an outstanding obligation of P259K. Hence, the summary judgment of the RTC in
favor of respondent is proper.