Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1953 > December 1953 Decisions > G.R. No. L-6208 December 29, 1953 - DOLORES BUENAVENTURA v. CELESTINO BUENAVENTURA ET., AL.

094 Phil 193:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-6208. December 29, 1953.]

DOLORES BUENAVENTURA, Administratrix of the Intestate Estate of the deceased Escolastico Buenaventura, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CELESTINO BUENAVENTURA and ANGELES BUENAVENTURA, Defendants-Appellees.

Emilio M. Javier for Appellant.

Teofilo Buslon for Appellees.


SYLLABUS


1. PLEADING AND PRACTICE; AMENDMENTS TO COMPLAINT; NECESSITY OF COURT’S PERMISSION TO MAKE THE AMENDMENT. — It appearing that the amended complaint was filed after defendants had already filed their answer, the admission thereof had to be with the leave of court under section 2 of Rule 17. As the amended complaint was filed without such leave and even without notice to the adverse party, the court acted within its authority in ordering it stricken from the record. With the amended complaint stricken out, it becomes unnecessary to decide whether the said amended complaint constituted a collateral attack on an original certificate of title.

2. ID.; DISMISSAL OF CASE "MOTU PROPRIO" BY THE COURT. — A case should not be dismissed motu proprio for the reason only that the parties had failed to file their promised agreed statement of facts and memoranda within the period fixed for the purpose; otherwise, it would be within the power of one party to have a case dismissed by simply not signing any stipulation of facts which his adversary might propose. Under the circumstances, the ends of justice would be better served by setting the case for hearing and permitting the parties to present evidence on those matters where no agreement could be reached.


D E C I S I O N


REYES, J.:


This is an action brought by the administratrix of the deceased Escolastico Buenaventura to recover a piece of land allegedly belonging to the latter, the complaint alleging that the said piece of land was among those entrusted by the deceased to his brother Celestino for his administration; that after the death of Escolastico in 1948, Celestino, together with his daughter Angeles, claim ownership of the land and refused to give the estate of the deceased its share of the products thereof.

Defendants admit that the land in question was among those entrusted to Celestino for administration but that on November 7, 1946, it was sold by Escolastico to defendant Angeles Buenaventura and by virtue of the deed covering the sale, an original certificate of title was issued in favor of the vendee in Cadastral Case No. 7, G. L. R. O. No. 759.

Replying to this allegation, plaintiff specifically denied under oath the genuineness and due execution of the alleged deed of sale.

Upon the case being called for trial, the court ordered the clerk to produce the record of the cadastral case above-mentioned, and having verified from said record that title had really been issued to Angeles, the court motu proprio dismissed the complaint in open court for lack of cause of action. The court, however, on the same occasion upon motion of plaintiff revoked its order of dismissal and ordered the parties to file an agreed statement of facts with memoranda within ten days from June 22, 1950. Acting on this order, counsel for plaintiff, then in Manila, sent counsel for defendants, then in Dipolog, Zamboanga, a proposed agreed statement of facts dated June 26, 1950. But counsel for defendants would not sign the proposed agreement, and plaintiff filed an amended complaint, dated June 28, 1950, alleging that the land in question had already been adjudicated in favor of the deceased Escolastico Buenaventura on June 4, 1940 and an order promulgated on August 20, for the issuance of the corresponding decree and certificate of title, but that defendants, through a fraudulent document of sale purportedly signed by the deceased Escolastico, had illegally secured the issuance of the original certificate of title in favor of the defendant Angeles Buenaventura. This amended complaint was received by the clerk of court on July 6, but it was not accompanied by any motion for leave of court.

This was the state of affairs when on July 14, 1950, the court handed down an order dismissing the case on the ground that the parties were not able to file an agreed statement of facts and memoranda despite the warning that the case would be dismissed upon their failure to do so. The amended complaint was also ordered stricken from the record as having been filed without leave of court and notice to the opposing party.

Reconsideration of this order having been denied, plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeals, but that court has certified the case here on the ground that the appeal only involves questions of law.

Appellant contends that the trial court erred (1) in dismissing the original complaint for failure of the parties to enter into an agreed statement of facts and submit their memoranda; (2) in disallowing plaintiff’s amended complaint; and (3) in holding that the amended complaint constituted a collateral attack on a Torrens certificate of title. It appearing that the amended complaint was filed after defendants had already filed their answer, the admission thereof had to be with the leave of court under section 2, Rule 17, Rules of Court. As the amended complaint was filed without such leave and even without notice to the adverse party, the court acted within its authority in ordering it stricken from the record. With the amended complaint stricken out, it becomes unnecessary to decide whether the said amended complaint constituted a collateral attack on an original certificate of title.

We believe, however, that the trial court acted rather hastily in ordering the dismissal of the case. There was no motion for that purpose. The reason given by the court was that the parties had failed to file their promised agreed statement of facts and memoranda within a period of ten days. As counsel for appellant rightly observes in his brief, the court’s reasoning would put it within the power of one party to have a case dismissed by simply not signing any stipulation of facts which his adversary might propose. We think that the ends of justice would have been better served had the trial court, upon being apprised that the parties could not agree on the facts, set the case for hearing and permitted them to present evidence on those matters where no agreement could be reached.

In view of the foregoing, the order of dismissal is hereby revoked and the case ordered remanded to the court below for further proceedings in which plaintiff should be given an opportunity to ask for leave for the filing of her amended complaint as provided in the Rules. Without costs.

Paras, C.J. Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, Jugo, Bautista Angelo and Labrador, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






December-1953 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-6019 December 15, 1953 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MOTIN COCOY

    094 Phil 91

  • G.R. No. L-5461 December 17, 1953 - AMADO ABADILLA CO CAI. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    094 Phil 98

  • G.R. No. L-6084 December 17, 1953 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RICARDO CATCHERO

    094 Phil 101

  • G.R. No. L-5700 December 18, 1953 - LEONILO PAÑA v. CITY MAYOR

    094 Phil 103

  • G.R. No. L-5272 December 21, 1953 - NORMAN H. BALL v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    094 Phil 106

  • G.R. No. L-5522 December 21, 1933

    LEONCIO HO BENLUY. ET AL., v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    094 Phil 110

  • G.R. No. L-5761 December 21, 1953 - VICTORIANO CAPIO v. FERNANDO CAPIO

    094 Phil 113

  • G.R. No. L-5385 December 28, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FILEMON CAGGAUAN, ET AL.

    094 Phil 118

  • G.R. No. L-3952 December 29, 1953 - MASSO HERMANOS v. DIRECTOR OF PATENTS

    094 Phil 136

  • G.R. No. L-4287 December 29, 1953 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GING SAM alias TABA

    094 Phil 139

  • G.R. No. L-5341 December 29, 1953 - ARSENIO TING. ARSENIO TING v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    094 Phil 165

  • G.R. No. L-5402 December 29, 1953 - L. R. AGUINALDO & CO. INC., v. NATIONAL LABOR UNION Y CIR

    094 Phil 167

  • G.R. No. L-5545 December 29, 1953 - ALEJANDRO TANGUNAN and PELAGIO TANGUNAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    094 Phil 171

  • G.R. No. L-5593 December 29, 1953 - LUIS TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    094 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. L-5711 December 29, 1953 - PEDRO PAESTE and FELIX CARPIO v. RUSTICO JAURIGUE

    094 Phil 179

  • G.R. No. L-5868 December 29, 1953 - SANCHO MONTOYA v. MARCELINO IGNACIO

    094 Phil 182

  • G.R. No. 6005 December 29, 1953 - NER J. LOPEZ v. LUCIA Y. MATIAS VDA. DE TINIO, ET AL.

    94 Phil 187

  • G.R. No. L-6080 December 29, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGRIPINA MAGAT DE SORIANO and RODRIGO MIRANDA

    094 Phil 188

  • G.R. No. L-6162 December 29, 1953 - YU SINGCO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    094 Phil 191

  • G.R. No. L-6208 December 29, 1953 - DOLORES BUENAVENTURA v. CELESTINO BUENAVENTURA ET., AL.

    094 Phil 193

  • G.R. No. L-6286 December 29, 1953 - LIM TEK GOAN v. NICASIO YATCO ETC.

    094 Phil 197

  • G.R. No. L-6304 December 29, 1953 - SERGIO V. SISON v. HELEN J. MCQUAID

    094 Phil 201

  • G.R. No. L-6340 December 29, 1953 - SULPICIO OYAO v. EMILIANO OYAO

    094 Phil 204

  • G.R. No. L-6359 December 29, 1953 - CARMEN CASTRO, ET AL. v. FRANCISCA SAGALES

    094 Phil 208

  • G.R. Nos. L-6383-84 December 29, 1953 - FILEMON SANTOS and FRANCISCO FRIAS v. HON. M. M. MEJIA

    094 Phil 211

  • G.R. No. L-6853 December 29, 1953 - FRANCISCO F. ILLESCAS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    094 Phil 215

  • G.R. No. L-6942 December 29, 1953 - JUAN REINANTE v. SEGUNDO APOSTOL, ETC AND ESCOBAR

    094 Phil 225