Back

[2/3] Tabhu, et al vs. Ramolete, et al

[2/3] ANTONIO LIM TANHU, DY OCHAY, ALFONSO LEONARDO NG SUA and CO OYO, petitioners, vs. HON. JOSE R. RAMOLETE, as Presiding Judge, Branch III, CFI, Cebu and TAN PUT, respondents.

G.R. No. L-40098 | 1975-08-29

Part II



Unequivocal, in the literal sense, as these provisions are, they do not readily convey the full import of what they contemplate. To begin with, contrary to the immediate notion that can be drawn from their language, these provisions are not to be understood as meaning that default or the failure of the defendant to answer should be "interpreted as an admission by the said defendant that the plaintiff's cause of action find support in the law or that plaintiff is entitled to the relief prayed for." (Moran, supra, p. 535 citing Macondary & Co. v. Eustaquio, 64 Phil. 466, citing with approval Chaffin v. McFadden, 41 Ark. 42;...