ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
November-1939 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 44260 November 2, 1938 - MONTE DE PIEDAD Y CAJA DE AHORROS DE MANILA v. MARIA PAZ MARCIANA GUIDOTE, ET AL.

    066 Phil 432

  • G.R. No. 46375 November 2, 1938 - GERONIMO SANTIAGO v. HERMENEGILDO ATIENZA, ET AL.

    066 Phil 436

  • G.R. No. 44372 November 3, 1938 - BENITO GARCIA v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    066 Phil 441

  • G.R. No. 44493 November 3, 1938 - MARIANO ANGELES v. ELENA SAMIA

    066 Phil 444

  • G.R. No. 46270 November 3, 1938 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS L. DE LA PEÑA

    066 Phil 451

  • G.R. No. 46085 November 4, 1938 - BULACAN BUS COMPANY, INC. v. FERNANDO ENRIQUEZ

    066 Phil 454

  • G.R. No. 44552 November 7, 1938 - ONG LIONG TIAK v. LUNETA MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL.

    066 Phil 459

  • G.R. No. 44634 November 9, 1938 - BALTAZAR ALUNEN, ET AL. v. TILAN

    066 Phil 463

  • G.R. No. 44778 November 9, 1938 - PROVINCE OF TAYABAS v. SIMEON PEREZ, ET AL.

    066 Phil 467

  • G.R. No. 44802 November 16, 1938 - FRANCISCO SABAS v. FRANCISCO GARMA, ET AL.

    066 Phil 471

  • G.R. No. 44843 November 17, 1938 - CARLOS YOUNG v. FRANCISCO M. BLANCO

    066 Phil 475

  • G.R. No. 44911 November 21, 1938 - ALEJANDRO IBARRA v. SEGUNDO AGUSTIN

    066 Phil 481

  • G.R. No. 44257 November 22, 1938 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. HONGKONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION, ET AL.

    066 Phil 483

  • G.R. No. 45792 November 22, 1938 - SWAN, CULBERTSON & FRITZ v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, ET AL.

    066 Phil 525

  • G.R. No. 45046 November 23, 1938 - PEOPLES BANK & TRUST CO. v. MANUEL OLONDRIZ, ET AL.

    066 Phil 537

  • G.R. No. 44518 November 23, 1938 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. YU GUICOC LAM

    066 Phil 542

  • G.R. No. 44837 November 23, 1938 - SOCORRO LEDESMA, ET AL. v. CONCHITA MCLACHLIN, ET AL.

    066 Phil 547

  • G.R. No. 44974 November 23, 1938 - W.S. PRICE v. CEFERINO YBANES, ET AL.

    066 Phil 552

  • G.R. No. 45028 November 25, 1938 - MAXIMO ABARY, ET AL. v. FIDELINO AGAWIN

    066 Phil 558

  • G.R. No. 44671 November 26, 1938 - MACONDRAY & CO., INC. v. ANTONIO E. RUIZ, ET AL.

    066 Phil 562

  • G.R. No. 44774 November 26, 1938 - FIDELITY AND SURETY CO. OF THE PHIL. v. ANGEL A. ANSALDO, ET AL.

    066 Phil 566

  • G.R. No. 44834 November 26, 1938 - LA PREVISORA FILIPINA v. FELIX Z. LEDDA

    066 Phil 573

  • G.R. No. 44947 November 26, 1938 - ANTONIO LABRADOR, ET AL. v. EMILIANO DE LOS SANTOS, ET AL.

    066 Phil 579

  • G.R. No. 45040 November 26, 1938 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. JULIO TUGAB

    066 Phil 583

  • G.R. No. 45105 November 26, 1938 - MACONDRAY & CO., INC. v. MACARIO JOSE

    066 Phil 590

  • G.R. No. 44602 November 28, 1938 - MARIA CALMA v. ESPERANZA TAÑEDO, ET AL.

    066 Phil 594

  • G.R. No. 44606 November 28, 1938 - VICENTE STO. DOMINGO BERNARDO v. CATALINO BATACLAN

    066 Phil 598

  • G.R. No. 44683 November 28, 1938 - JOAQUIN NAVARRO v. FERNANDO AGUILA, ET AL.

    066 Phil 604

  • G.R. No. 45070 November 28, 1938 - CHIN GUAN v. COMPAÑIA MARITIMA

    066 Phil 608

  • G.R. No. 45260 November 28, 1938 - BARBARA ECHAVARRIA v. ROMAN SARMIENTO, ET AL.

    066 Phil 611

  • G.R. No. 46267 November 28, 1938 - FRANCISCO ZANDUETA v. SIXTO DE LA COSTA

    066 Phil 615

  • G.R. No. 44931 November 29, 1938 - FELIX BILANG v. ERLANGER & GALINGER, INC.

    066 Phil 627

  • G.R. No. 45169 November 29, 1938 - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. PASAY TRANSPORTATION COMPANY

    066 Phil 630

  • G.R. No. 45344 November 29, 1938 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE P. ANCHETA, ET AL.

    066 Phil 638

  • G.R. No. 46040 November 29, 1938 - PAMPANGA BUS COMPANY, INC. v. FERNANDO ENRIQUEZ

    066 Phil 645

  • G.R. No. 46133 November 29, 1938 - PLACIDO ROSAL v. DIONISIO FORONDA, ET AL.

    066 Phil 650

  • G.R. No. 46174 November 29, 1938 - PAMPANGA BUS COMPANY, INC. v. FERNANDO ENRIQUEZ

    066 Phil 654

  • G.R. No. 46262 November 29, 1938 - CINE LIGAYA v. ALEJO LABRADOR, ET AL.

    066 Phil 659

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 45028   November 25, 1938 - MAXIMO ABARY, ET AL. v. FIDELINO AGAWIN<br /><br />066 Phil 558

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. 45028. November 25, 1938.]

    MAXIMO ABARY and VICTORIA ZALAMEDA, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. FIDELINO AGAWIN, Defendant-Appellee.

    Aurelio Palileo and Monzon, Labrador & Sunico, for Appellants.

    Jose L. Gomez, for Appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    1. JURISDICTION: DEMURRER; CONCURRENT JURISDICTION OF JUSTICE OF THE PEACE COURTS AND COURTS OF FIRST INSTANCE; INDEPENDENT CAUSES OF ACTION. — The alleged lack of jurisdiction of the court over the case is based on the fact that plaintiffs’ claim against defendant is for an amount not less than P600. Section 68 of Act No. 138, as amended by Act No. 4090, provides in effect that justice of the peace courts shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of First Instance to hear and determine cases in which the amount of the demand exceeds P200 but is less than P600. It should be noted, however, that the complaint in the instant case alleges two independent causes of action because the loans to which each of the causes of action refers were not secured from the date from the same person, and were, moreover, obtained on different dates. These are two amounts which do not constitute a single account. It is error to add them together in order to allege an apparently good ground for demurrer.

    2. ID: ID; ESTABLISHED PRACTICE WHEN A DEMURRER IS OVERRULED AND DEFENDANT DOES NOT ANSWER COMPLAINT. — The practice in cases in which the demurrer is overruled is to wait until defendant answer the complaint within the reglementary period. If he does not do so, then the plaintiff should be required to prove the allegations of his complaint (Sec. 128, Act No. 190). Plaintiffs not having adduced their evidence after defendant’s demurrer to their complaint was overruled, it is not proper to render judgment in their favor, granting them, without evidence, what they had prayed for in said complaint.

    3. ID: ID; RECONSIDERATION OF AN ORDER OVERRULING A DEMURRER MAY BE DONE WHILE COURT HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE. — The order of the court overruling defendant’s demurrer was later reconsidered. For this reason it cannot be strictly said that it was overruled. Exactly the contrary happened. In reconsidering its order, the court sustained the demurrer and ruled that it had no jurisdiction over the case. There is no law which prohibits the lower court to reconsider its orders on any question it has, in its opinion, good reasons thereof, and as long as the case in which it thus acts remains in its hands and it has not lost its jurisdiction through any of the grounds prescribed by law.


    D E C I S I O N


    DIAZ, J.:


    To the complaint filed in the Court of First Instance of Laguna by the spouses Maximo Abary and Victoria Zalameda against Fidelino Agawin, the latter interposed a demurrer based on the following grounds: (1) That the court;lacks jurisdiction over the case on appeal because the justice of the peace court from which said case originated did not have it by reason of the amount of the claim set forth in the complaint against defendant; and (2) that the complaint did not allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

    The lower court sustained the demurrer on the first ground and inasmuch as plaintiffs did not amend their complaint, said court dismissed the same. From the order of dismissal, plaintiffs appealed, assigning as errors committed by the court the following:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "1. In sustaining the demurrer after defendant filed his motion for reconsideration of a previous order overruling said demurrer;

    "2. In not rendering judgment in favor of plaintiffs after overruling the demurrer interposed by defendant; and

    "3. In dismissing the case and ordering plaintiffs to pay the cost."cralaw virtua1aw library

    1. The alleged lack of jurisdiction of the court over the case is based on the fact that plaintiffs’ claim against defendant is for an amount not less than P600. Section 68 of Act No. 136, as amended by Act No. 4090, provides in effect that justice of the peace courts shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of First Instance to hear and determine cases in which the amount of the demand exceeds P200 but is less than P600. It should be noted, however, that the complaint in the instant case alleges two independent causes of action because the loans to which each of the causes of action refers were not secured from the same person, and were, moreover, obtained on different dates. The first loan for P500 was taken by defendant from plaintiffs on October 17, 1934, while the other for P100 was obtained from plaintiff Victoria Zalameda on October 23, 1934. These are two amounts which do not constitute a single account. It is error to add them together in order to allege an apparently good ground for demurrer.

    "Where there are several counts in the declaration, complaint, or statement, each stating the same cause of action in somewhat different praseology, or upon a different theory of recovery, and each claiming an amount within the jurisdictional limit, an objection that the aggregate amount claimed is beyond the justice’s jurisdiction is without merit, even though the counts are not stated in the alternative." (35 C. J., page 516.)

    "It is well settled that a person cannot split up an entire indivisible claim, so as to give a justice’s court jurisdiction that it would not otherwise possess. If he could not do so, a justice of the peace might be given cognizance of causes involving immense sums. . . . On the other hand a party cannot combine several separate causes of action for the purpose of depriving a justice’s court of its jurisdiction, for the amount of each separate demand or cause of action, and not the aggregate of the various causes which may be joined in an action, determines the jurisdiction of the justice’s court." (16 R. C. L., page 358.)

    This same opinion was adopted by this court in the case of Villaseñor v. Erlanger and Galinger (19 Phil., 574), in disposing similar question.

    It is, therefore clear that the lower court committed the first error assigned by the appellants.

    2. As to the second error, it should be stated that the practice in cases in which the demurrer is overruled is to wait until defendant answers the complaint within the reglementary period. If he does not do so, then plaintiff should required to prove the allegations of his complaint (sec. 128, Act No. 190). Plaintiffs not having adduced their evidence after defendant’s demurrer to their complaint was overruled, it is not proper to render judgment in their favor, granting them, without evidence, what they had prayed for in said complaint.

    On the other hand, the order of the court overruling defendant’s demurrer was later reconsidered. For this reason it cannot be strictly said that it was overruled. Exactly the contrary happened. In reconsidering its order, the court sustained the demurrer and held that it has no jurisdiction over the case for the reason hereinbefore mentioned. There is indeed no law which prohibits the lower court to reconsider its order on any question if it has, in its opinion, good reasons therefor, and as long as the case in which it thus acts remains in its hands and it has not lost jurisdiction through any of the grounds prescribed by law.

    3. As it has been shown that the lower court committed the first error assigned by appellants, we need not consider the third assigned error. The case should not have been dismissed because the reason set forth in the order appealed from did not justify such dismissal. There is now, therefore, no reason why plaintiffs should have to pay any costs after they have paid the legal fees.

    In view of all the foregoing, the ordered appealed from is reversed and it is ordered that the case be remanded to the lower court for appropriate trial for the purpose of hearing the parties and deciding the questions raised by the complaint and the answer which appellee may desire to file within the period that may be given him, with costs against said appellee. So ordered.

    Avanceña, C.J., Villa-Real, Imperial and Laurel, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. 45028   November 25, 1938 - MAXIMO ABARY, ET AL. v. FIDELINO AGAWIN<br /><br />066 Phil 558


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED