Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1909 > July 1909 Decisions > G.R. No. 1917 July 26, 1909 - CATALINIBALDERAMA v. LA COMPANIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS, ET AL.

013 Phil 609:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 1917. July 26, 1909. 1 ]

CATALINO BALDERAMA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LA COMPANIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

Ruperto Montinola, for Appellant.

Rothrock & Smith, for Appellees.

SYLLABUS


1. CIVIL PROCEDURE; ATTACHMENT; DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT. — The defendant obtained a judgment against one Balderrama and an execution was issued thereon. The sheriff levied upon certain property for the purpose of satisfying said judgment. The plaintiff claimed that the property belonged to him and not to Balderrama. The plaintiff made a demand upon the sheriff for a return of the property and gave a bond in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. The sheriff refused to return the property. Later the plaintiff commenced an action against the defendants to recover the property or the value thereof, alleging, among other things, that he was the real owner. Defendants demurred to the complaint. Instead of dismissing the complaint, upon sustaining the demurrer, the lower court, in accordance with the provisions of section 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure should have given the plaintiff the right to amend his complaint if he so desired. (Molina v. La Electricista, 6 Phil. Rep., 519; Serrano v. Serrano, 9 Phil. Rep., 142): Held, that the facts stated in the complaint in the court below were sufficient to show a cause of action. Judgment of the lower court reversed and cause remanded, with direction that the defendant answer said complaint.


D E C I S I O N


JOHNSON, J. :


From the bill of exceptions the following facts appear:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

First. That, some time prior to the commencement of the present action, La Compania General de Tabacos de Filipinas, Uy-Golan and Yap-Anching, as plaintiffs in an action in some court (the record does not disclose what court) against one Sabino Balderrama, obtained a judgment against said defendant for a sum of money.

Second. That, upon the 8th day of December, 1903, the sheriff, the said James J. Watkins, took possession of certain personal property, to wit, un carro de dos ruedas y un vacuno de pelo medio retinto, and so forth, under and by virtue of an execution issued by the court in said case.

Third. That, upon the 19th day of December, 1903, the plaintiff herein made a demand upon the sheriff for the possession of said property, alleging that the same belonged to him, and presented a sworn statement to the said sheriff of said fact.

Fourth. That after the plaintiff herein had made the said demand upon the said sheriff (Watkins), the other defendants herein, or the said Uy-Golan and Yap-Anching, executed and delivered to the said sheriff the bond provided for in section 451 of the Code of Procedure in Civil Actions. By virtue of the bond of the said Chinos the sheriff retained possession of the said property.

Fifth. On the 31st day of December, 1903, the plaintiff herein commenced an action against the defendants herein, alleging that he was the owner of said carro y vacuno and prayed that the court should order a return of said property to him and that the defendants should pay the costs.

Sixth. To this complaint the defendants demurred, alleging that the said complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

Seventh. After hearing the arguments of the respective parties, the lower court sustained the demurrer and dismissed the complaint.

Eighth. Against this order of the lower court sustaining the demurrer, the plaintiff duly excepted and presented his bill of exceptions.

The lower court did not give the plaintiff the right to amend his complaint in accordance with the provisions of section 101 of the Code of Procedure in Civil Actions. This was an error. (Molina v. La Electricista, 6 Phil. Rep., 519; Serrano v. Serrano, 9 Phil. Rep., 142.)

The plaintiff and appellant assigns two errors in this court:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

First. That the lower court committed an error in holding that the facts set out in the complaint were not sufficient to constitute a cause of action; and

Second. That the lower court committed an error in sustaining the demurrer.

These two assignments of error constitute but one error, to wit, that the lower court committed an error in deciding that the facts contained in the complaint were not sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

Upon an examination of the facts alleged in the complaint, we are inclined to hold, and do hold, that the facts were sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The substantial facts of the complaint were simply that the sheriff, by virtue of an execution against a third party, had levied upon and taken possession of property belonging to the plaintiff herein, and that he was still retaining the possession and denying the right of possession on the part of the plaintiff. If these facts are true, then surely the plaintiff is entitled to recover the property in question. The allegations being sufficient, the plaintiff should be given an opportunity to prove them. Therefore, the judgment of the lower court sustaining the demurrer is hereby reversed and the cause is hereby remanded to the lower court, with the instruction that the defendants be given five days within which to answer the said complaint after due notice of this decision. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Carson and Moreland, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. The following causes involving the same subject-matter were considered at the same time and decided with the same result: No. 1918, Balderrama v. La Compania General de Tabacos of Filipinas Et. Al.; No. 1919, Delecano v. La Compania General de Tabacos de Filipinas Et. Al.




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