Practice question
A creditor sues Daria based on an attached instrument that identifies only Ruel as obligor and does not show Daria as a party to it. Daria specifically denies its genuineness and due execution, states her factual position, but does not swear to that denial. The creditor insists the lack of an oath necessarily admits the instrument against her. Which Rule 8 section 8 qualification matters?
- The oath requirement does not apply to an adverse party who does not appear to be a party to the instrument
- Every nonparty to an instrument is automatically liable on it
- The instrument can never be challenged by anyone
- The exception automatically proves forgery without evidence
- The exception eliminates the need for any specific denial or factual position
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/courts/rules/am_19-10-20-sc_2019.html — current Rule 8, sections 1, 6–7 and 11–12, facts including evidence, judgments, actionable-document attachment, admissions and affirmative defenses.
- https://lawphil.net/courts/rules/rc_1-71_civil.html — Rule 8 unchanged sections 2–5 and 8–10, alternatives, conditions precedent, fraud, actionable-document denial and specific denial; read with the 2019 amendments.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jun2015/gr_187487_2015.html — Go Tong Electrical Supply Co., Inc. v. BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc., G.R. No. 187487, June 29, 2015, main decision on distinct defenses despite admission of genuineness and due execution.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.