Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1956 > September 1956 Decisions > [G.R. No. L-8949. September 28, 1956.] ADRIANO PAJARILLO, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellees, vs. ANDRES MANAHAN, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.:




EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-8949.  September 28, 1956.]

ADRIANO PAJARILLO, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellees, vs. ANDRES MANAHAN, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

 

D E C I S I O N

PARAS, C.J.:

The Plaintiffs-Appellees filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija against the Defendants-Appellants, to compel the latter to convey to the former the two parcels of land described in the complaint and to recover fifty cavanes of palay annually beginning the agricultural years 1951-1952, or their equivalent money value at twelve pesos per cavan; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryit being alleged that Appellees gave to the Appellants the sum of P2,000 for the latter to buy in behalf and for the account of the former the said parcels of land but that, contrary to their agreement, the Appellants made the purchase in their own name and have refused to deliver the land to the Appellees.

In their answer the Appellants alleged that they neither received from the Appellees the sum of P2,000 nor agreed to buy the land in question for Appellees’ account, the truth being that they purchased the same for themselves.

The Appellants subsequently filed a motion to dismiss, setting up the statute of frauds and alleging that an express trust, upon which Appellees’ cause of action was based, cannot be proved by parole evidence. After the Appellees had filed their answer to the motion to dismiss, and after preliminary hearing, the court issued an order on January 28, 1953, the dispositive part of which reads as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary “Wherefore, the Court finds that the claim of the Plaintiffs as set forth in the complaint is one based upon an express trust, there being no writing or memorandum it is barred by the statute of frauds, apart from the fact that it cannot be proved by parole evidence; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryand pursuant to the provisions of Rule 8, section 1, paragraph (h) of the Rules of Court, the complaint is dismissed with costs against the Plaintiffs.” The Appellees thereafter filed a motion for reconsideration in so far only as the court dismissed the complaint even with reference to their right to recover the sum of P2,000 from the Appellants. On April 15, 1953, the court issued an order reconsidering the order of January 28, 1953, “in the sense that the complaint in so far as the alleged delivery and return of the money in question are concerned, be as it is hereby reinstated.” A subsequent motion for reconsideration filed by Appellants was denied, and the trial of the case was set for September 20, 1953. On this date, in view of the absence of attorney for Appellants, and upon motion of attorney for Appellees, the trial was postponed to October 15, 1953, when there was again no appearance for Appellants. Whereupon the court allowed the Appellees to present their evidence; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryand on December 8, 1953, a judgment was rendered, sentencing the Appellants to return to the Appellees the sum of P2,000, with legal interest from the date of the filing of the complaint, and to pay the costs. The Defendants have appealed.

It is argued for Appellants that the lower court erred in reinstating the complaint and in sentencing them to return to the Appellees the sum of P2,000, because said matter was not litigated under the pleadings and when said court dismissed the complaint on January 28, 1953, nothing remained before it for adjudication. This is without foundation. Pleadings are to be liberally construed. The complaint alleged the delivery to the Appellants of the sum of P2,000, with the agreement on the latter’s part to buy the land in question in behalf and for the account of the Appellees; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryand in addition to the specific prayer for the conveyance by the Appellants to the Appellees of said land, the complaint prayed for “other relief which may be just and equitable in the premises.” Ours are courts of law and equity. In view of the dismissal of the complaint as to the recovery of the land in question, on the technical ground that an express trust cannot be proved by parol evidence, it was but just and equitable under the allegations of the complaint and the prayer for other relief, for the court to proceed with the determination of the question whether or not the Appellees paid to the Appellants the sum of P2,000 and whether the latter should be ordered to return the same. In Aguilar vs. Rubiato, 40 Phil., 570, it was held:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary “That payment of the sum of P800 was not explicitly prayed for in the complaint, does not deprive the court of power to render judgment for this amount because it is a rule of good pleading that the ‘demand in the complaint is no part of the statement of the cause of action. The facts alleged do this, and the Plaintiff is entitled to so much relief as they warrant.’ Indeed, section 9 of Rule 35 of the Rules of Court provides that “the judgment shall grant the relief to which the party in whose favor it is rendered is entitled, even if the party has not demanded such relief in his pleadings.”

But it is urged for the Appellants that, assuming that the return or delivery of the sum of P2,000 was a part of Appellees’ cause of action, the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija did not have jurisdiction over the matter, as the justice of the peace or municipal court has exclusive original jurisdiction where the value of the subject matter or amount demanded does not exceed P2,000 exclusive of interest and costs (section 88, Republic Act No. 296). This contention would be tenable, if the complaint was solely for the collection of said amount, but not where, as in the case at bar, it was merely part and parcel of the complaint for the recovery of land.

It appearing that due notice was served upon the Appellants’ first, of the hearing set for September 20, and secondly, of the hearing set for October 15, 1953, their failure to appear amounted to a waiver of their day in court. It is not pretended that the appealed judgment is not supported by the evidence presented by the Appellees.

Wherefore, the appealed judgment is affirmed, and it is so ordered with costs against the Appellants.

Padilla, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Endencia, and Felix, 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






September-1956 Jurisprudence                 

  • [G.R. No. L-9414. September 7, 1956.] CIRIACO SAN ANTONIO, Petitioner, vs. ASUNCION ESPINOLA, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. L-9695. September 10, 1956.] In the matter of the estate of PETRONILA BAGA, Appellee, vs. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-9182. September 12, 1956.] OPERATORS, INCORPORATED, Appellant, vs. JOSE PELAGIO and VICENTE LAGMAN, Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-9895. September 12, 1956.] VALENTIN GABALDON, Petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. L-9565. September 14, 1956.] YU KI LAM, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. NENA MICALLER, ET AL., Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-9785. September 19, 1956.] MARIANO H. DE JOYA, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL, PASAY CITY BRANCH, presided over by the Hon. Judge EMILIO RILLORAZA, Respondent.

  • [G.R. Nos. L-8497 & L-8517. September 21, 1956.] BATANGAS TRANSPORTATION COMPANY and LAGUNA-TAYABAS BUS COMPANY, Petitioners, vs. BI�AN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, and JOSE SILVA, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-9141. September 25, 1956.] Testate Estate of OLIMPIO FERNANDEZ, deceased. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, claimant-Appellee, vs. ANGELINA OASAN VDA DE FERNANDEZ, PRISCILLA O. FERNANDEZ, and ESTELA O. FERNANDEZ, Oppositors-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. L-9145. September 25, 1956.] MAXIMA FELIPE, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. PONCIANA DE LA CRUZ, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. L-9305. September 25, 1956.] GEORGE EDWARD KOSTER INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JOSE C. ZULUETA, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-9334. September 25, 1956.] HEIRS OF MARIANO ARROYO SINGBENGCO, Petitioners, vs. THE HON. FRANCISCO ARELLANO, ETC., ET AL., Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. L-7210. September 26, 1956.] OLIMPIA OBISPO and FELICIANO CARPIO, Petitioners, vs. REMEDIOS OBISPO, CONRADO ALINEA and THE COURT OF APPEALS (Second Division), Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8818. September 27, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. VENANCIO C. MANGAMPO, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-9167. September 27, 1956.] WE WA YU, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. CITY OF LIPA, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-8373. September 28, 1956.] ALEJANDRO MERCADER, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. MANILA POLO CLUB and ALEX D. STEWART, Defendant-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-8557. September 28, 1956.] THE CITY OF MANILA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. FRANCISCO REYES, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-8771. September 28, 1956.] JOSE C. GONZALES, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. AURELIA DATU, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-8919. September 28, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellees, vs. AGUSTIN MANGULABNAN alias GUINITA, DIONISIO SARMIENTO, ARCADIO BALMEO, PATRICIO GONZALES, FLORENTINO FLORES, CRISPIN ESTRELLA, FELIPE CALISON, PEDRO VILLAREAL, CLAUDIO REYES, �PETER DOE� and �JOHN DOE� Defendant, AGUSTIN MANGULABNAN, Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-8949. September 28, 1956.] ADRIANO PAJARILLO, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellees, vs. ANDRES MANAHAN, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. L-9203. September 28, 1956.] In the matter of the petition to change and correct entry in the Civil Registry of Manila. ALBERTO T. CHOMI, Petitioner-Appellant, vs. THE LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF MANILA, Respondent-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-9281. September 28, 1956.] PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR UNIONS (PAFLU) and MAJESTIC AND REPUBLIC THEATERS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (PAFLU), Petitioners, vs. Hon. EDILBERTO BAROT, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila and REMA, INCORPORATED, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-9398. September 28, 1956.] AURORA REYES, assisted by her guardian ad litem, GABRIEL REYES, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. BETTY SANTOS DE LA ROSA and JAIME DE LA ROSA, Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-9819. September 28, 1956.] FIDEL DEL ROSARIO, Petitioner, vs. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION and JUAN SANTOS, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-9966. September 28, 1956.] CHIONG TIAO BING and CHIONG TIAO SIONG who is a minor and herein represented by his Father CHIONG PHAI HUN, Petitioners-Appellees, vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION, Respondent-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-6296. September 29, 1956.] CU UNJIENG SONS, INC., Petitioner, vs. THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS and THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-9204. September 29, 1956.] AUGUSTO R. ILLAROSA and AUGUSTO ILLAROSA, JR., Petitioners, vs. ON. JOSE TEODORO, SR., Presiding Judge, Court of First Instance of Occidental Negros, Branch II, and AMADO S. PARRE�O, Judicial Administrator of the Estate of the late spouses WENCESLAO B. PARRE�O and VIRGINIA VILLANUEVA, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-9516. September 29, 1956.] GREGORIO CARLOS, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. P. J. KIENER CONSTRUCTION, LTD., Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-9534. September 29, 1956.] MANILA STEAMSHIP CO., INC., Petitioner, vs. INSA ABDULHAMAN (MORO) and LIM HONG TO, Respondents.