Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1953 > March 1953 Decisions > G.R. No. L-5952 March 26, 1953 - OTILLA SOLDER DE OCAMPO, ET AL. v. ANATALIO C. MAÑALAC, ET AL.

092 Phil 860:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-5952. March 26, 1953.]

OTILLA SOLDER DE OCAMPO, ET AL., Petitioners, v. ANATALIO C. MAÑALAC, ETC., ET AL., Respondents.

Ezekiel S. Grageda, for Petitioners.

Ramon C. Fernandez for respondent Saturnino Benito.


SYLLABUS


1. PLEADING AND PRACTICE; AMENDMENTS AT ANY STAGE OF ACTION. — The words "any stage of the action", appearing in section 2 of Rule 17, which permits amendments of pleadings at any stage of an action, mean "not after the rendition of a final judgment." Although in one case (Cuyugan v. Dizon, 45 Off. Gaz., No. 2, p. 673) it was held that the complaint may be amended in the Supreme Court even after final decision is rendered, it was only to cure the defect of party plaintiffs, without any prejudice to the defendants.

2. ID.; SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER NOT ADMISSIBLE AFTER FINAL JUDGMENT. — Where damages had already been finally disallowed by the Court of Appeals, a supplemental answer seeking to recover said damages, filed after the record was remanded to the lower court, is not admissible.

3. ID.; ID.; PARTITION. — Section 8 of Rule 71 providing that "one party may recover from another his just share of rents and profits received by such other party from the real estate in question, and the judgment shall include an allowance for such rents and profits," contemplates a case where a proper claim has been timely pleaded, clearly not a case where a decision has become final, expressly eliminating an award for such damages.


D E C I S I O N


PARAS, C.J. :


In civil case No. 43 of the Court of First Instance of Sorsogon, in which the herein petitioners were the plaintiffs, and the herein respondent Saturnino Benito was the defendant, a decision was rendered the dispositive part of which reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"In the light of all the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered against the plaintiffs and in favor of Saturnino Benito, declaring and adjudging the latter rightfully entitled to the lawful ownership of one-half of the parcel in dispute as described in paragraph 11 of the complaint, and to the possession and enjoyment thereof and of its products and improvements; ordering the partition of the land in two equal parts; sentencing the plaintiffs to deliver to Saturnino Benito the one-half that he had been possessing from 1944 to 1945 and to pay to him the value of its products or P1,500 annually from 1945 until partition is effected and delivery thereof is made; and to pay, further, the costs of this action. No pronouncement and adjudication is made with respect to the ownership, possession and enjoyment of the other half and of its products and improvements."cralaw virtua1aw library

Upon appeal by the petitioners, the Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Sorsogon insofar as it condemned the petitioners to pay to respondent Benito the sum of P1,500 yearly, and affirmed said judgment in all other respects. The Court of Appeals pertinently stated:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . ., we agree with the appellants that the grant of P1,500 damages, representing the supposed share of Saturnino Benito in the products of the land in question, is not justified by the pleadings. There is no claim presented for such kind of damages in Benito’s answer or amended answer; the damages claimed in Benito’s answer are the damages supposed to have been caused to him by the filing of the action, not by his being deprived of his share in the products of the land. The evidence of supposed damages for failure of Benito to receive his share in the products of the land should not have been admitted because not specifically alleged in Benito’s answer, and we agree with appellants, contention that it is unjust that the appellee take advantage of the absence of the adverse party to introduce facts not alleged in his pleadings, thus depriving it of its opportunity to contest the said facts. Plaintiffs-appellants had every right to demand that any evidence introduced during the trial be confined to the issues raised by the pleadings, and we declare that a violation of this right amounts to a deprivation of the adverse party’s day in court. The portion of the decision awarding the damages of P1,500 a year in favor of the appellee should, therefore, be reversed and suppressed from the judgment."cralaw virtua1aw library

After the decision of the Court of Appeals had become final and the records returned to the Court of First Instance of Sorsogon, the respondent Saturnino Benito filed in the latter court a motion for the admission of a supplemental answer, praying that the petitioners be ordered to pay the sum of P1,500 yearly from 1945. This is the same relief eliminated by the final decision of the Court of Appeals. Over the objection of the petitioners, the Court of First Instance of Sorsogon, through the respondent judge, admitted the supplemental answer and gave the petitioners ten days within which to plead thereto, and ordered that the case be set for hearing thereafter. The petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration and, upon its denial by the respondent judge, instituted in this court the present petition for certiorari.

The contention is made for the respondents that the supplemental answer is admissible under section 2 of Rule 17 of the Rules of Court, permitting amendments of pleadings at any stage of an action, and under section 5 of said Rule, which allows the filing of a supplemental pleading setting forth transactions, occurrence or events which have happened since the date of the pleading sought to be supplemented. This is untenable, because "any stage of an action" means "not after the rendition of a final judgment." (Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, 1952 ed., Vol. I, p. 377, citing Espiritu v. Crossfield, 14 Phil., 588, 591.) Although in one case, Cuyugan v. Dizon, * 45 Off. Gaz., No. 2, p. 673, it was held that the complaint may be amended in the Supreme Court, even after final decision is rendered, it was only to cure the defect of party plaintiffs, without any prejudice to the defendants. (Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, 1952 ed., Vol. I, p. 377.) In the case at bar, damages already finally disallowed by the Court of Appeals are prayed for in the supplemental answer, with the result that a final judgment is sought to be altered on a substantial matter. More or less the same reason should apply with respect to the filing and admission of supplemental pleadings, if it is desired that there be an end to litigations.

The case of City of Texarkana, Texas v. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co., 1 Federal Rules Service, p. 275, is cited for the respondents in support of the claim that "in an action for the refund of rates charged consumers of a gas company, leave to file a supplemental petition should be granted upon the remand of the case to the trial court in order to bring the controversy up to date and permit the entire controversy to be settled." The citation is not decisive, since we find therein the following: "Where there is a good cause of action stated in the original bill, a supplemental bill setting up facts subsequently occurring which justify other or further relief is proper. If the original decree in the trial court had not been entered, this supplemental petition would simplify the controversy. We think this procedure is equally applicable after remand for further proceedings." Which goes to show that the case was specifically remanded for further proceedings and a good cause of action was stated in the original bill.

But it is argued for the respondents that the action has been converted into one for partition, and there is no final judgment until the corresponding portions of the parties are adjudicated, and that under section 8 of Rule 71 "one party may recover from another his just share of rents and profits received by such other party from the real estate in question, and the judgment shall include an allowance, for such rents and profits." This provision, however, contemplates a case where a proper claim has been timely pleaded, clearly not a case where a decision has become final, expressly eliminating an award for such damages. That respondent Benito was aware of his right to the supposed damages mentioned in his supplemental answer and could have timely pleaded it is demonstrated by the fact that he had indeed been able to present evidence on his failure to receive his share in the products of the land.

Wherefore, the orders of the respondent judge in civil case No. 43, dated June 17 and July 12, 1952, admitting the supplemental answer in question, are hereby set aside. So ordered, with costs against the respondent Saturnino Benito.

Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, Reyes, Jugo and Bautista Angelo, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



* 79 Phil., 80.




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






March-1953 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-5074 March 3, 1953 - IN RE: TAN CHONG YAO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    092 Phil 750

  • G.R. No. L-5276 March 3, 1953 - ATOK-BIG WEDGE MINING CO., INC. v. ATOK-BIG WEDGE MUTUAL BENEFIT ASS’N.

    092 Phil 754

  • G.R. No. L-3517 March 4, 1953 - LAURA ADIARTE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS (Special Division), ET AL.

    092 Phil 758

  • G.R. No. L-5098 March 10, 1953 - CERVERLEON T. DY v. REPUBLICA DE FILIPINAS

    092 Phil 782

  • G.R. No. L-5302 March 11, 1953 - GERTRUDO FLORES, ET AL. v. ARSENIO ESCUDERO, ET AL.

    092 Phil 786

  • G.R. No. L-4263 March 12, 1953 - AMADO B. PARREÑO v. HON. JAMES P. MCGRANERY

    092 Phil 791

  • G.R. No. L-4998 March 13, 1953 - JOSE ALCANTARA, ET AL. v. MARIANO D. TUAZON, ET AL.

    092 Phil 796

  • G.R. No. L-5216 March 16, 1953 - LIM BING IT v. FIDEL IBAÑEZ, ET AL.

    092 Phil 799

  • G.R. No. L-4710 March 19, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EPIMACO TABUNARES

    092 Phil 801

  • G.R. No. L-5517 March 19, 1953 - DAMASO MADRID v. HON. ANATOLIO C. MAÑALAC, ET AL.

    092 Phil 803

  • G.R. No. L-6036 March 19, 1953 - IN RE: GERONIMO YU v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    092 Phil 804

  • G.R. No. L-4640 March 23, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EPIFANIO AVILA

    092 Phil 805

  • G.R. No. L-4991 March 23, 1953 - COSME OIDA FOLLOSCO v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET ALS.

    092 Phil 810

  • G.R. No. L-5369 March 23, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUSEBIO FAJARDO

    092 Phil 818

  • G.R. Nos. L-5757 & L-5892 March 23, 1953 - PAULINA DE JESUS, ET AL. v. MAGNO S. GATMAITAN, ET AL.

    092 Phil 822

  • G.R. No. L-4463 March 24, 1953 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL. v. REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR THE PROV. OF RIZAL, ET AL.

    092 Phil 826

  • G.R. No. L-4883 March 25, 1953 - J. M. TUASON & CO., INC., ET AL. v. FELICIANO DE LA CRUZ

    092 Phil 832

  • G.R. No. L-5380 March 25, 1953 - FERMIN RAMOS, ET AL. v. MIGUEL ALBANO, ET AL.

    092 Phil 834

  • G.R. No. L-5555 March 25, 1953 - EUGENIO O. REYES v. PABLO G. CORNISTA, ET AL.

    092 Phil 838

  • G.R. No. L-5621 March 25, 1953 - PHIL. MOVIE PICTURES WORKERS’ ASS’N. v. PREMIERE PRODUCTIONS, INC.

    092 Phil 843

  • G.R. No. L-4582 March 26, 1953 - FLORENTINO MANIPON v. GOV’T. OF THE U.S.

    092 Phil 850

  • G.R. No. L-5224 March 26, 1953 - DOMINGO LUIS, ET AL. v. ANTONIO BELMONTE ETC. ET AL.

    092 Phil 853

  • G.R. No. L-5371 March 26, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AQUINO MINGOA

    092 Phil 856

  • G.R. No. L-5952 March 26, 1953 - OTILLA SOLDER DE OCAMPO, ET AL. v. ANATALIO C. MAÑALAC, ET AL.

    092 Phil 860

  • G.R. No. L-5204 March 27, 1953 - IN RE: HOSPICIO OBILES v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    092 Phil 864

  • G.R. Nos. L-5853-54 March 27, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAFAEL BELENO

    092 Phil 868

  • G.R. No. L-4838 March 28, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIX DACANAY, ET AL.

    092 Phil 872