Actionable Documents; what happens if you fail to properly contest an actionable document?

When the basis of your complaint or defense is founded on a written instrument or document (i.e., contract of loan, deed of sale, etc.), that instrument is considered an “actionable document”.

Actionable documents (the substance thereof) not only need to be alleged in the pleading, but it or a copy thereof must also be attached to the pleading (complaint or answer) as an exhibit, or at the very least, reproduced or set forth therein (Section 7, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court).

To deny an actionable document, specific denial is not enough. The denial must likewise be under oath (i.e., verified). Note that, in ordinary cases (meaning cases not based on actionable documents), one need only to specifically deny the allegations in the complaint without need of executing a verification of the Answer or the Reply, as the case may be, but if an actionable document is being contested or denied, verification is necessary, as this is the express requirement found in Section 8, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court, to wit -

"SEC. 8. How to contest such documents. - When an action or defense is founded upon a written instrument, copied in or attached to the corresponding pleading as provided in the preceding Section, the genuineness and due execution of the instrument shall be deemed admitted unless the adverse party, under oath, specifically denies them, and sets forth what he claims to be the facts; but the requirement of an oath does not apply when the adverse party does not appear to be a party to the instrument or when compliance with an order for an inspection of the original instrument is refused.” (underscoring supplied)

What happens then if an actionable document is not properly denied or contested?

The failure to properly contest an actionable document will result in the admission of the “genuineness and due execution” of the said document.

Spouses Santos v. Alcazar, G.R. No. 183034, 12 March 2014 explains what is meant by the admission of the “genuineness and due execution”of a document, thus -

“By the admission of the genuineness and due execution [of such document] is meant that the party whose signature it bears admits that he signed it or that it was signed by another for him with his authority; that at the time it was signed it was in words and figures exactly as set out in the pleading of the party relying upon it; that the document was delivered; and that any formal requisites required by law, such as a seal, an acknowledgment, or revenue stamp, which it lacks, are waived by him. Hence, such defenses as that the signature is a forgery . . .; or that it was unauthorized . . .; or that the party charged signed the instrument in some other capacity than that alleged in the pleading setting it out . . .; or that it was never delivered . . ., are cut off by the admission of its genuineness and due execution." (emphasis and underscoring supplied)

Basically, the admission of the genuineness and due execution of a document means that the document exists and is in all respects the one signed or executed by the party against whom it is raised. This, of course, does not mean that the plaintiff is already entitled to judgment as a matter of right, but only that the document is what it purports to be. A party is not precluded from raising any defense which will rebut the effect of the actionable document, and thus defeat the plaintiff's cause of action against him (i.e., payment, prescription, etc.).

In Segundino Toribio, et al. vs. Judge Abdulwahid A. Bidin, G.R. No. 57821, 17 January 1985, the Supreme Court explained that the reason behind the rule requiring a specific denial under oath is so that the adverse party (the one who introduces the actionable document) will know beforehand whether he will have to meet the issue of genuineness and due execution of the document during trial. It is likewise there to relieve a party of the trouble and expense of proving in the first instance, the existence or non-existence of the document, which is necessarily within the knowledge of the adverse party.

Thus, as explained in Spouses Santos, when a party fails to properly contest an actionable document, “a prima facie case is made for the plaintiff which dispenses with the necessity of evidence on his part and entitles him to a judgment on the pleadings unless a special defense of new matter, such as payment, is interposed by the defendant.”