Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1923 > March 1923 Decisions > G.R. No. 19565 March 24, 1923 - ATKINS, KROLL & CO. v. SANTIAGO DOMINGO

044 Phil 680:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 19565. March 24, 1923. ]

ATKINS, KROLL & CO., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SANTIAGO DOMINGO, Defendant-Appellant.

Lorenzo & Manalac for Appellant.

W. A. Armstrong for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. WHEN JUDGMENT ON AMENDED COMPLAINT IS VOID. — Where the original complaint was duly served upon the defendant, who makes default, and an amended complaint was thereafter filed, which was not legally served upon the defendant, a judgment rendered upon the amended complaint is void as to any new matter therein alleged.

2. WHEN AND HOW AMENDED COMPLAINT SHOULD BE SERVED. — Where the defendant is in default as to the original complaint, and an amended complaint is filed while such default exists, to sustain a judgment upon the amended complaint as to any new matter, it should be served upon the defendant with the same formalities as the original complaint.


D E C I S I O N


STATEMENT

The plaintiff is domestic corporation, and defendant is a resident of the municipality of Zamboanga.

September 30, 1921, plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendant in which it is alleged that the parties are owners in joint tenancy of lots Nos. 38 and 55 of the cadastral plan of the Zamboanga townsite, expendiente No. 7880, registered under the Land Registration Act under Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 3433 and 3435. "That the parties have not been able to make amicable partition of said parcels of land." Wherefore, plaintiff prays that the court order and direct the partition of the land and the improvements thereon between the parties as their interests shall appear, etc. November 1, 1921, the plaintiff filed a motion stating that at the time of filing of the original complaint, through an oversight, lot No. 36 was not included, and that since the filing of said complaint differences have arisen with regard to the accounting for the rental of the properties mentioned and described in the complaint; and that in the interests of both parties and of the proper administration of justice between them, all of their differences respecting said property should be adjusted in on and the same suit. Wherefore, it prays that the court permit the filing of the amended complaint, and that such answer as the defendant desires to make within the time for answer provided by law be also allowed. November 23, 1921, the plaintiff filed a motion for default for the reason "that the defendant does not enter his appearance or file his answer, as required by law and the rules of the court." This motion was sustained. January 16, 1921, the court rendered a judgment founded upon the amended complaint dividing the land between the parties according to their respective interest, and awarding the plaintiff judgment for rent on lot No. 36 to December 31, 1921, in the sum of P131.25, and on lot No. 38 for P455.76, or a total of P587.01, together with the costs of the action. February 6, 1922, the defendant appeared and filed a motion to set aside the judgment and to grant a new trial upon the grounds, first, that he had never received personally or through any other person a copy of the complaint or any copy of the summons; second, that after having received the decision of the court by registered mail, he made a thorough investigation of all the inmates of the house, and each one of them denied having received any copy of the summons and complaint; third, that he did not have any knowledge that the case was pending, or that it was set for hearing on a certain date; fourth, that he known the nature of the complaint and the date of the hearing he would have presented proofs in support of his rights sufficient to obtained a decision in his favor; fifth, that in the interest of justice the decision should be set aside and a new trial granted, in order that the case may be adjudged and decided on the merits.

The court overruled defendant’s motion, from which he appeals, claiming that the court erred in declaring the defendant in default by its order of January 9, 1922, and in ordering that the plaintiff and the defendant are the owners in common of the lots, and in sentencing the defendant to pay P587.01 as rents, and in decreeing the partition of the property, and denying defendant’s motion for a new trial.

JOHNS, J. :


The facts are all well and clearly stated in the opinion of the trial court. From which it appears that on September 30, 1921, service of the original complaint and summons was made by the deputy of the provincial sheriff, leaving copy with Maximo Domingo, son of the defendant at the usual place of residence of the defendant, and that the son was a person of sufficient age and intelligence upon whom service could be made. November 3, 1921, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint in which it was stated that a copy had been sent to the defendant under registered cover. For the failure of the defendant to appear and answer, on November 23, 1921, the plaintiff filed its motion asking for a default. December 27, 1921, the deputy clerk of the court sent by registered mail to the defendant a notice that the case would come up for hearing on January 7, 1922. On January 9, 1922, plaintiff’s motion for default came on supported by the affidavit of Mr. Armstrong, one of the attorneys for the plaintiff, from which it appears that a copy of the amended complaint, which had been sent to the defendant by registered mail, had been returned undelivered, and that on the 18th of December, 1921, he, Armstrong, had personally delivered a copy of the amended complaint to a son of the defendant over the age of sixteen years, who was living at the residence of the defendant.

The record is conclusive that the service of the original complaint tan summons was valid, and if the judgment of the trial court had been founded upon and followed the original complaint, it would have to be sustained. It is also conclusive that the final judgment which was rendered is based upon and follows the amended complaint. If the defendant had appeared in the action, service of the amended complaint upon him in the manner and form stated would have been sufficient. But the defendant never did appear in the action until he filed his motion to set aside and vacate the judgment. For such reason, the service of the amended complaint upon his sixteen-year-old son by the attorney for the plaintiff was not sufficient to give the court jurisdiction over the defendant as to any new matter alleged in the amended complaint. Under the facts shown here, the amended complaint and summons should have been served upon the defendant with the same formalities as the original complaint and summons. Hence, the service of the amended complaint made by the attorney for the plaintiff is not valid and did not give the court jurisdiction to render judgment upon the amended complaint. The defendant has now entered a formal appearance and is in court, and service of the amended complaint can now be made on the defendant or his attorneys of record by the attorney for the plaintiff in compliance with the rules of the court in the same manner as any other pleading or motion can be served when the parties are in court.

For such reasons, the judgment of the lower court is set aside and vacated, and case is remanded with instructions that a copy of the amended complaint be now served on the defendant or his attorneys under the rule of the court. Should the defendant then make default, judgment may then be entered on the amended complaint. Neither party to recover costs in this court. So ordered.

Araullo, C.J., Street, Malcolm, Avanceña, Ostrand, and Romualdez, 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






March-1923 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-20144 March 2, 1923 - UNION GUARANTEE CO., LTD., v. Hon. S. DEL ROSARIO, ET AL.

    046 Phil 805

  • G.R. No. L-20048 March 2, 1923 - NICOMEDES DE LOS SANTOS v. Hon. EMILIO MAPA, ET AL.

    046 Phil 791

  • G.R. No. 19857 March 2, 1923 - ILOILO ICE AND COLD STORAGE CO. v. PUBLIC UTILITY BOARD

    044 Phil 551

  • G.R. No. 20343 March 2, 1923 - SEVERINO LUNA v. WARDEN OF PROVINCIAL PRISON OF BATANGAS

    044 Phil 565

  • IN RE: VICENTE PELAEZ : March 3, 1923 - 044 Phil 567

  • G.R. No. 19142 March 5, 1923 - IN RE: FLAVIANA SAMSON v. VICENTE CORRALES TAN QUINTIN

    044 Phil 573

  • G.R. No. 19715 March 5, 1923 - JAMES J. MCCARTHY v. VICENTE ALDANESE

    044 Phil 576

  • G.R. No. 20088 March 5, 1923 - MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF MASANTOL v. GUILLERMO B. GUEVARRA, ET AL.

    044 Phil 580

  • G.R. No. 20159 March 5, 1923 - HILARION TIMBOL v. ANACLETO DIAZ, ET AL.

    044 Phil 587

  • G.R. No. 18242 March 6, 1923 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. SIMPLICIO MARCELLANA, ET AL.

    044 Phil 591

  • G.R. No. 20151 March 6, 1923 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. FRANCISCO SANTAMARIA, ET AL.

    044 Phil 594

  • G.R. No. 19541 March 8, 1923 - DEMETRIO MAXION v. MANILA RAILROAD CO.

    044 Phil 597

  • March 12, 1923 - IN RE: TOMAS FLORDELIZA

    044 Phil 608

  • G.R. No. 19996 March 12, 1923 - BANK OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. LAGUNA COCONUT OIL CO. ET AL.

    044 Phil 618

  • G.R. No. 19630 March 13, 1923 - SERAPIO TABAR, ET AL. v. FELICIANO BECADA, ET AL.

    044 Phil 619

  • G.R. No. 20478 March 14, 1923 - IN RE: AMZI B. KELLY v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

    044 Phil 623

  • G.R. No. 19742 March 16, 1923 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS, ET AL. v. MATEO PAYVA

    044 Phil 624

  • G.R. No. 20329 March 16, 1923 - STANDARD OIL CO. OF NEW YORK v. JOAQUIN JARAMILLO

    044 Phil 630

  • G.R. No. L-20144 March 17, 1923 - UNION GUARANTEE CO., LTD. v. Hon. S. DEL ROSARIO, ET AL.

    046 Phil 796

  • G.R. No. 20214 March 17, 1923 - G. C. ARNOLD v. WILLITS & PATTERSON, LTD.

    044 Phil 634

  • G.R. No. 19869 March 21, 1923 - ROBERT E. MURPHY v. WENCESLAO TRINIDAD

    044 Phil 649

  • G.R. No. 19740 March 22, 1923 - PAULO LAURETA v. PEDRO EMILIO MATA, ET AL.

    044 Phil 668

  • G.R. No. 19278 March 24, 1923 - CHARLES A. FOSSUM v. FERNANDEZ HERMANOS, ET AL.

    044 Phil 675

  • G.R. No. 19565 March 24, 1923 - ATKINS, KROLL & CO. v. SANTIAGO DOMINGO

    044 Phil 680

  • G.R. No. 19850 March 24, 1923 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. ROMUALDO MIJARES

    044 Phil 684

  • G.R. No. 19993 March 24, 1923 - RUFINO FETALINO v. FRANCISCO SANZ

    044 Phil 691

  • G.R. No. 18771 March 26, 1923 - NICOLAS PANLILIO, ET AL. v. ATILANO MERCADO, ET AL.

    044 Phil 695



  • G.R. No. L-20057 March 24, 1923 - THOMAS G. INGALLS v. WENCESLAO TRINIDAD

    046 Phil 807


  • G.R. No. L-19417 March 27, 1923 - FILOMENA CONCEPCION v. CEFERINO JOSE, ET AL.

    046 Phil 809

  • G.R. Nos. 18774 & 18876 March 27, 1923 - EL VENCEDOR v. JUAN S. CANLAS, ET AL.

    044 Phil 699

  • G.R. No. 19441 March 27, 1923 - FUA CUN v. RICARDO SUMMERS, ET AL.

    044 Phil 705

  • G.R. No. 20080 March 27, 1923 - JUAN NAVAS L. SIOCA v. JOSE GARCIA

    044 Phil 711

  • G.R. No. 19461 March 28, 1923 - CHARLES A. FOSSUM v. FERNANDEZ HERMANOS, ET AL.

    044 Phil 713

  • G.R. No. 19786 March 31, 1923 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. CLEMENTE AVILA

    044 Phil 720

  • G.R. No. 19826 March 31, 1923 - LUCIANO DELGADO v. EDUARDO ALONSO DUQUE VALGONA

    044 Phil 739

  • G.R. Nos. 19831, 19832 & 19833 March 31, 1923 - GARRIZ, TERREN & CO. v. NORTH CHINA INS. CO.

    044 Phil 749

  • G.R. No. 19893 March 31, 1923 - ARNALDO F. DE SILVA v. ABOITIZ & CO., INC.

    044 Phil 755