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
 

   
April-1949 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-1749 April 2, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUCAS GEMPES

    083 Phil 267

  • G.R. No. L-1441 April 7, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MIGUEL N. MORENO

    083 Phil 286

  • G.R. No. L-2179 April 12, 1949 - MANILA TRADING petitioner v. MANILA TRADING LABORERS’ ASSN.

    083 Phil 297

  • G.R. No. L-979 April 13, 1949 - COMMONWEALTH OF THE PHIL. v. FAR EASTERN SURETY

    083 Phil 305

  • G.R. No. L-2745 April 13, 1949 - FLAVIANO ROMERO v. POTENCIANO PECSON

    083 Phil 308

  • G.R. No. L-856 April 18, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SUSANO PEREZ

    083 Phil 314

  • G.R. No. L-493 April 19, 1949 - SANTIAGO BANAAG v. VICENTE SINGSON ENCARNACION

    083 Phil 325

  • G.R. No. L-1545 April 19, 1949 - E. R. CRUZ v. RAFAEL DINGLASAN.

    083 Phil 333

  • G.R. No. 48671 April 19, 1949 - EUSEBIO BELVIZ v. CATALINO BUENAVENTURA

    083 Phil 337

  • G.R. No. L-364 April 25, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANO T. JAUCIAN

    083 Phil 340

  • G.R. No. L-1282 April 25, 1949 - JUAN S. BARROZO v. MARCELINO T. MACARAEG

    083 Phil 378

  • G.R. No. L-2525 April 26, 1949 - MARY BURKE DESBARATS v. TOMAS DE VERA

    083 Phil 382

  • G.R. No. 48676 April 26, 1949 - LEON ORACION v. PACITA JUANILLO

    083 Phil 397

  • G.R. No. L-793 April 27, 1949 - FELISA R. PAEZ v. FRANCISCO MAGNO

    083 Phil 403

  • G.R. No. L-1259 April 27, 1949 - IN RE: CRISANTO DE BORJA v. JULIANA DE BORJA

    083 Phil 405

  • G.R. No. L-1370 April 27, 1949 - BERNARDA DE VASQUEZ v. ALFONSO DIVA

    083 Phil 410

  • G.R. No. L-1399 April 27, 1949 - IN RE: GONZALO T. DAVID v. CARLOS M. SISON

    083 Phil 413

  • G.R. No. L-1590 April 27, 1949 - RAYMUNDA SIVA v. FELIXBERTO IMPERIAL REYES

    083 Phil 416

  • G.R. No. L-1627 April 27, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. MAMERTO RAMIREZ

    083 Phil 418

  • G.R. No. L-1976 April 27, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARULA

    083 Phil 425

  • G.R. No. L-2056 April 27, 1949 - SANTIAGO ALERIA v. JUAN MENDOZA

    083 Phil 427

  • G.R. No. L-2336 April 27, 1949 - ANGELINA CANAYNAY v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN

    083 Phil 429

  • CA. No. 2592-R April 27, 1949 - SATURNINA ZAPANTA v. VIRGILIO BARTOLOME

    083 Phil 433

  • G.R. No. L-2612 April 27, 1949 - RURAL PROGRESS ADMINISTRATION v. DOMINADOR TEMPOROSA

    083 Phil 438

  • G.R. No. L-855 April 28, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TROADIO BUTAWAN

    083 Phil 440

  • G.R. No. L-1275 April 28, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. FULGENCIO BUSTILLOS.

    083 Phil 443

  • G.R. No. L-1661 April 28, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEODORO CANTOS

    083 Phil 446

  • G.R. No. L-1672 April 28, 1949 - IN RE: ZENAIDA JIRO-MORI

    083 Phil 450

  • G.R. No. L-2028 April 28, 1949 - PHIL. SHEET METAL WORKERS’ UNION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    083 Phil 453

  • CA. No. 332 April 29, 1949 - CHINA INSURANCE & SURETY COMPANY v. B. K. BERKENKOTTER

    083 Phil 459

  • G.R. No. L-1650 April 29, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GORGONIO MACABUHAY

    083 Phil 464

  • G.R. No. L-2899 April 29, 1949 - NATIONAL COCONUT CORPORATION v. FRANCISCO GERONIMO

    083 Phil 467

  • G.R. No. L-150 April 30, 1949 - VICENTE HILADO v. FELIX DE LA COSTA

    083 Phil 471

  • G.R. No. L-1234 April 30, 1949 - VICTORINO FLORO v. SANTIAGO H. GRANADA

    083 Phil 487

  • G.R. No. L-1383 April 30, 1949 - PAZ ESCARELLA DE RALLA v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    083 Phil 491

  • G.R. No. L-1523 April 30, 1949 - BIÑAN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY v. FIDEL IBAÑEZ

    083 Phil 503

  • G.R. No. L-1783 April 30, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO CARPIO Y ESTACIO

    083 Phil 509

  • G.R. No. L-1916 April 30, 1949 - PABLO C. SIBULO v. LOPE ALTAR

    083 Phil 513

  • G.R. No. L-2009 April 30, 1949 - SUNRIPE COCONUT PRODUCTS CO. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    083 Phil 518

  • G.R. No. L-2122 April 30, 1949 - FAUSTINO BUTER v. TRIBUNAL DE RELACIONES INDUSTRIALES

    083 Phil 526

  • G.R. No. L-46798 April 30, 1949 - PINDANGAN AGRICULTURAL CO., INC. v. ERNEST A. SCHENKEL Y OTRO

    083 Phil 529

  • G.R. No. 49167 April 30, 1949 - CO TAO v. JOAQUIN CHAN CHICO

    083 Phil 543

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-2336   April 27, 1949 - ANGELINA CANAYNAY v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN<br /><br />083 Phil 429

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. L-2336. April 27, 1949.]

    ANGELINA CANAYNAY, PRUDENCIA V. ASPREC and CLETO ASPREC, Petitioners, v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN and FELICIANO SARMIENTO, Respondents.

    Isidoro A. Vera, for Petitioners.

    De la Rosa, De Guia & Santos for respondent Feliciano Sarmiento.

    SYLLABUS


    1. STATUTES; APPEAL; INFERIOR COURT TO COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE; PLEADINGS DEEMED REPRODUCED; SECTION 7 OF RULE 40, INTERPRETED. — According to section 7 of Rule 40 of the Rules of Court, what is deemed reproduced in the Court of First Instance upon the docketing of the case therein, is only the complaint but not the answer filed in the justice of the peace or municipal court. The reason is that there may be no answer filed in the justice of the peace court, or that if there is any filed therein, it may be changed in the Court of First Instance where a trial de novo is to be held.

    2. APPEAL; PLEADING AND PRACTICE; CHANGE OF THEORY OR STAND. — Although neither the plaintiff nor the defendant may change on appeal in the Court of First Instance the question raised by the pleadings in the inferior court, a denial that may have been made in the justice of the peace court may be changed into an admission, or a special defense interposed therein may be withdrawn in the Court of First Instance.

    3. ID.; NECESSITY FOR FILING ANSWER. — It is then necessary for the defendant to redefine his stand in the Court of First Instance by filing an answer in due time, and his failure to do so is ground for default.


    D E C I S I O N


    MORAN, C.J. :


    This is a special civil action for certiorari.

    Respondent Feliciano Sarmiento filed an action for illegal detainer against petitioners Angelina Canaynay, Prudencia V. Asprec and Cleto Asprec in the justice of the peace court of Parañaque, Rizal. Petitioners filed an answer claiming ownership of the property and after trial asked for the dismissal of the case upon the ground that it involved a question of title over which the justice of the peace had no jurisdiction. The motion was denied and judgment was rendered against petitioners, who appealed to the Court of First Instance. Upon the docketing of the case in that court, petitioners filed what they called a "Constancia," wherein they impugned the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace and objected to the exercise by the Court of First Instance of its original jurisdiction over the case and prayed that "after hearing the above-entitled case be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction of the justice of the peace court." According to the petitioners themselves, this "Constancia" was not meant as a motion to dismiss but merely to make of record their objection to both the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace and the original jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance, and their prayer was that "after the trial of this case when this court (of First Instance) shall have found from the evidence presented that the real question involved is one of ownership and not merely possession, to declare that the justice of the peace court is without jurisdiction, and, consequently, should dismiss the case." But the prayer contained in this "Constancia" was denied by the court.

    In the meantime, petitioners failed to file their answer to the complaint which was deemed reproduced in the Court of First Instance upon the docketing of the case therein, and for that reason, the court, on motion of the plaintiff, declared petitioners in default. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration upon the ground that the answer filed in the justice of the peace court should have been deemed reproduced also in the Court of First Instance, but the motion was denied. The Court, after receiving the evidence for the plaintiff, rendered judgment against petitioners ordering them to vacate the property and to pay the rents thereof to plaintiff. Whereupon, Petitioners, instead of appealing from this decision and from the order of default filed this special civil action for certiorari in this Court.

    The only ground alleged by petitioners against the order of default issued against them is that, upon the docketing of the case in the Court of First Instance, not only the complaint but also the answer filed in the justice of the peace court should have been deemed reproduced. However, this contention is contrary to Rule 40, section 7, which reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Upon the docketing of the cause under appeal, the complaint filed in the justice of the peace or municipal court shall be considered reproduced in the Court of First Instance and it shall be the duty of the clerk of the court to notify the parties of that fact by registered mail, and the period for making an answer shall begin with the date of the receipt of such notice by the defendant."cralaw virtua1aw library

    According to this provision, what is deemed reproduced in the Court of First Instance upon the docketing of the case therein, is only the complaint, but not the answer, filed in the justice of the peace or municipal court. The reason is that there may be no answer filed in the justice of the peace court, or that if there is any filed therein, it may be changed in the Court of First Instance where a trial de novo is to be held. Although neither the plaintiff nor the defendant may change on appeal in the Court of First Instance the questions raised by the pleadings in the inferior court, a denial that may have been made in the justice of the peace court may be changed into an admission, or a special defense interposed therein may be withdrawn in the Court of First Instance. It is then necessary for the defendant to re-define his stand in the Court of First Instance by filing an answer in due time, and his failure to do so is ground for default.

    Petition is dismissed, with costs against the petitioners.

    Paras, Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Briones, Tuason, Montemayor and Reyes, JJ., concur.

    Separate Opinions


    PERFECTO, J., concurring:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    We concur in the decision as a correct exposition and interpretation of section 7 of Rule 40.

    We feel, however, that it is our duty to express our opinion to the effect that the said section should be amended as being unreasonable and unfair to the defendant. We do not see any reason why the defendant should be compelled to file a new answer or reproduce his answer as filed in the municipal court, while plaintiff is relieved from the obligation of reproducing his complaint.

    G.R. No. L-2336   April 27, 1949 - ANGELINA CANAYNAY v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN<br /><br />083 Phil 429


    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