Republic v.

Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. 152154, July 15, 2003
Facts:
Issue:
WON the kind of denial in respondents' answer qualifies as the specific
denial called for by the rules and if so deemed admitted by them.
Held:
No, respondents denial did not qualify as specific denial and deemed
admitted by them.
Section 10, Rule 8 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a
defendant must specify each material allegation of fact the truth of which he
does not admit and, whenever practicable, shall set forth the substance of
the matters upon which he relies to support his denial. Where a defendant
desires to deny only a part of an averment, he shall specify so much of it as
is true and material and shall deny the remainder. Where a defendant is
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
a material averment made in the complaint, he shall so state, and this shall
have the effect of a denial.
Here, respondents in their Answer failed to specifically deny each and
every allegation contained in the petition for forfeiture in the manner
required by the rules. All they gave were stock answers like "they have no
sufficient knowledge" or "they could not recall because it happened a long
time ago," and, as to Mrs. Marcos, "the funds were lawfully acquired,"
without stating the basis of such assertions. Such a general, self-serving
claim of ignorance of the facts alleged in the petition for forfeiture was
insufficient to raise an issue. Therefore, the allegations in the petition for
forfeiture on the existence of the Swiss bank deposits in the sum of about
US$356 million, not having been specifically denied by respondents in their
answer, were deemed admitted by them pursuant to Section 11, Rule 8 of
the 1997 Revised Rules on Civil Procedure which substantially provides states
that material averment in the complaint, shall be deemed admitted when not
specifically denied.