Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1909 > January 1909 Decisions > G.R. No. 4374 January 26, 1909 - RUFINA ROCES v. FRANCISCO JALANDONI, ET AL.

012 Phil 599:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 4374. January 26, 1909. ]

RUFINA ROCES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FRANCISCO JALANDONI and OSCAR BOGACKI, Defendants-Appellants.

Guanko, Avanceña & Abeto, for Appellants.

Nicolas Jalandoni, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. PLEADING AND PRACTICE; DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT. — It is a well established rule that the complaint must contain a statement of all the facts constituting the plaintiff’s cause of action, otherwise it is demurrable. But the rule is also well settled that, if the defendant permits the introduction of evidence, without objection, which supplies the necessary allegations, such evidence has the effect of curing the defects, and a demurrer can not then be interposed on the ground that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Secs. 93, 126, Code of Civil Procedure.)


D E C I S I O N


JOHNSON, J. :


This was an action by the plaintiff to recover possession of a house and the land upon which it was situated, which house and land are more particularly described in paragraph one of the complaint.

The defendant, Jalandoni, admitted in his answer the rights of the plaintiff. The defendant Bogacki filed a general denial, denying each and all of the allegations of the plaintiff.

After hearing the evidence adduced during the trial of the cause, the lower court rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, ordering that the said property, which was then in the possession of the defendant, Bogacki, be returned to the plaintiff and that the said Jalandoni pay to the defendant Bogacki the sum of P120 with interest at 6 per cent from June, 1906, without making any finding as to costs.

From this decision the defendant Bogacki appealed and made the following assignments of error:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. The court erred in finding that the general demurrer offered by the defendant Oscar Bogacki should be overruled for having been presented after the proofs had been submitted.

"2. The court erred in finding that the complaint had been cured by the testimony of the plaintiff."cralaw virtua1aw library

There was no motion for a new trial in the court below, and while the proof was brought to this court we can not examine it for the reason that this court has many times decided that in the absence of a motion for a new trial in the lower court and an exception taken to the ruling of the court thereon, this court can not examine the evidence. In order, therefore, to determine whether or not the lower court committed the errors assigned above, an examination of the facts stated in the decision of the lower court only can be made.

With reference to the first assignment of error, the lower court stated in his decision that the defendant Bogacki interposed a general demurrer after all of the proof had been presented by both parties in the trial. The lower court further stated that the complaint presented by the plaintiff was very weak and insufficient, and that if the general demurrer had been presented before the commencement of the trial, it might have been sustained, but that in the opinion of the court the defects in the said complaint had been cured by the declarations of the plaintiff, presented during the trial, without opposition on the part of the defendant.

We must accept this finding of facts on the part of the court. If it is true, and the fact is not denied, that whatever defects in the matter of allegations which existed in the complaint had been cured by the evidence adduced during the trial, then a demurrer presented after the proof was admitted without opposition could not be effective.

The appellant calls our attention to section 93 of the Code of Procedure in Civil Actions, which provides that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"If no objection be taken to the complaint, either by demurrer or answer, the defendant shall be deemed to have waived all objections, excepting only the objection to the jurisdiction of the court over the subject-matter and that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action."cralaw virtua1aw library

No rule is better established than the rule which requires the complaint to contain a statement of all of the facts constituting the plaintiff’s cause of action. If it does not, it is subject to demurrer. The rule is also well established that if the defendant permits evidence to be introduced, without objection, which supplies the necessary allegations of a defective complaint, then this evidence has the effect of curing the defects of such a complaint and a demurrer thereafter is inadmissible upon the ground that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Not only are defective pleadings cured by the admission of evidence without objection, during the trial, but the court is required to render a judgment in any particular case, giving such relief as is consistent with the case made by the pleadings and the evidence. (See sec. 126, Code of Procedure in Civil Actions, and sec. 2533 of the Compilation of the Acts of the Philippine Commission.)

The judgment of the lower court being fully supported by the law, the same is hereby affirmed, with costs.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Carson, Willard and Tracey, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





January-1909 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 4000 January 5, 1909 - ANDRES ELUMBARING v. HERMOGENES ELUMBARING

    012 Phil 384

  • G.R. No. 4001 January 5, 1909 - SILVESTRA LUBRICO v. LEONA ARBADO

    012 Phil 391

  • G.R. No. 4393 January 8, 1909 - LA COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS v. CITY OF MANILA

    012 Phil 397

  • G.R. No. 4648 January 8, 1909 - CLAUS SPRECKELS, ET AL. v. D. H. WARD, ET AL.

    012 Phil 414

  • G.R. No. 4762 January 8, 1909 - ALBERTO LAGAHIT v. SIMEON NENGASCA, ET AL.

    012 Phil 423

  • G.R. No. 4841 January 8, 1909 - JAMES F. MACLEOD v. PHILIPPINE PUBLISHING COMPANY

    012 Phil 427

  • G.R. No. 5120 January 8, 1909 - TIMOTEO GONZALEZ v. GEORGE N. WOLFE

    012 Phil 436

  • G.R. No. 4680 January 9, 1909 - ROBERTO MORENO v. AGO CHI

    012 Phil 439

  • G.R. No. 4350 January 11, 1909 - MONICA CASON v. F. W. RICKARDS, ET AL.

    012 Phil 444

  • G.R. No. 4627 January 11, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. EL CHINO QUE-QUENCO

    012 Phil 449

  • G.R. No. 4634 January 11, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. UY-KUE-BENG

    012 Phil 451

  • G.R. No. 4089 January 12, 1909 - ARTURO PELAYO v. MARCELO LAURON, ET AL.

    012 Phil 453

  • G.R. No. 4604 January 12, 1909 - GUTIERREZ HERMANOS v. ANTONIO DE LA RIVA

    012 Phil 458

  • G.R. No. 4849 January 12, 1909 - TIMOTEO CASTRO, ET AL. v. ADOLPH WISLIZENUS, ET AL.

    012 Phil 468

  • G.R. No. 4596 January 13, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. ESTEBAN FORTALEZA

    012 Phil 472

  • G.R. No. 4810 January 13, 1909 - VICTORIA GARCIA v. B. MONTAGUE

    012 Phil 480

  • G.R. No. 4495 January 14, 1909 - TY SUE, ET AL. v. JOHN S. HORD

    012 Phil 485

  • G.R. No. 5050 January 14, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. GO-SIACO

    012 Phil 490

  • G.R. No. 4461 January 16, 1909 - MACARIO SAMSON v. VICENTE SALVILLA, ET AL.

    012 Phil 497

  • G.R. No. 3187 January 19, 1909 - MICHAEL SANDELIZ v. PAZ REYES

    012 Phil 506

  • G.R. No. 3966 January 19, 1909 - JUAN LEANO I, ET AL. v. AGAPITO LEANO

    012 Phil 508

  • G.R. No. 3988 January 19, 1909 - GUILLERMO YACAPIN v. JULIAN JIBERO

    012 Phil 510

  • G.R. No. 4563 January 19, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. GARINO SORIANO, ET AL.

    012 Phil 512

  • G.R. No. 4676 January 19, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO TOGONON

    012 Phil 516

  • G.R. No. 4720 January 19, 1909 - CARLOS GSELL v. VALERIANO VELOSO YAP-JUE

    012 Phil 519

  • G.R. No. 4750 January 19, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. RICARDO F. GUTIERREZ

    012 Phil 529

  • G.R. No. 4766 January 19, 1909 - ANG QUIAN CIEG, ET AL. v. JUAN TE CHICO, ET AL.

    012 Phil 533

  • G.R. No. 4915 January 19, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. VY CAN SIU

    012 Phil 540

  • G.R. No. 5049 January 19, 1909 - ALFREDO CHANCO v. ANACLETA MADRILEJOS, ET AL.

    012 Phil 543

  • G.R. No. 4765 January 20, 1909 - ANG SENG QUEN, ET AL. v. JUAN TE CHICO, ET AL.

    012 Phil 547

  • G.R. No. 4291 January 21, 1909 - GUTIERREZ HERMANOS v. CUSTODIO DAUDEN

    012 Phil 551

  • G.R. No. 5101 January 21, 1909 - TEODORO M. BEECH v. A. S. CROSSFIELD, ET AL.

    012 Phil 555

  • G.R. No. 4721 January 23, 1904

    RICARDO v. BASILIO MAJINAY

    012 Phil 559

  • G.R. No. 4813 January 23, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. POTENCIANO SIAMSICO

    012 Phil 571

  • G.R. No. 3714 January 26, 1909 - ISABELO M. MONTANO v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT, ET AL.

    012 Phil 572

  • G.R. No. 3783 January 26, 1909 - DAMASO SANTIAGO, ET AL. v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT

    012 Phil 593

  • G.R. No. 4194 January 26, 1909 - KO BENGCO v. SHERIFF OF THE PROVINCE OF ILOILO, ET AL.

    012 Phil 595

  • G.R. No. 4374 January 26, 1909 - RUFINA ROCES v. FRANCISCO JALANDONI, ET AL.

    012 Phil 599

  • G.R. No. 4710 January 26, 1909 - LEON AGCAOILI v. BENITO ACASIO

    012 Phil 602

  • G.R. No. 4715 January 26, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. EL CHINO CHIA-TUA

    012 Phil 605

  • G.R. No. 4474 January 27, 1909 - BERNABE ALCERA v. SATURNINO NERY

    012 Phil 608

  • G.R. No. 4706 January 27, 1909 - RAMON PAPA v. FRANCISCO MARTINEZ

    012 Phil 613

  • G.R. No. 4816 January 27, 1909 - FRANCISCO Q. GONZALEZ v. CARLOS PALANCA TAN-GUINLAY

    012 Phil 617

  • G.R. No. 4725 January 28, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. JACINTO DE LOS SANTOS, ET AL.

    012 Phil 622

  • G.R. No. 4832 January 28, 1909 - MUÑOZ & CO. v. JOHN S. HORD

    012 Phil 624

  • G.R. No. 3016 January 29, 1909 - ROMAN CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH v. MUNICIPALITIES OF CALOOCAN, ET AL.

    012 Phil 639