Francisco v. Tabada
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Cayetana Ch. Veloso, the alleged owner of certain real estate, and her husband, Dalmacio Francisco, instituted an action in the court of the justice of the peace of Cebu to recover possession of the property occupied by the defendant, Geronimo Tabada, as a tenant, along with rents due and damages. Judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiffs. Procedural History: The defendant appealed to the Court of First Instance, where the action was set for trial de novo. During the pendency of the action, Cayetana Ch. Veloso died. Dalmacio Francisco, appointed administrator of her estate, was substituted as plaintiff to prosecute the action in the right of the deceased. Judgment was again rendered in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court. The Petition: The defendant-appellant assigned several errors, including the lack of verification of the complaint, the substitution of the administrator as plaintiff, the admission of certain documents over objection, and the insufficiency of evidence to sustain the trial court's findings.
Issue(s)
Whether the complaint filed in the Court of First Instance, after appeal from the justice of the peace court, requires verification. Whether the substitution of the administrator as plaintiff was proper. Whether certain documents were admissible in evidence. Whether the findings of fact of the trial court were sustained by the evidence.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court below, holding that the substitution of the administrator was proper and that the evidence supported the findings of the trial court. The Court also addressed the issue of complaint verification, referencing prior rulings.
Ratio Decidendi
On the verification of the complaint: The Court noted that while section 81 of the Code of Civil Procedure prescribes verification for original complaints in summary actions, it had previously held in Tarrosa vs. Pearson that a new complaint filed in the Court of First Instance upon appeal from a justice of the peace court need not be verified. Therefore, if the assignment of error was based on the lack of verification of the new complaint in the Court of First Instance, it could not be maintained. The Court also discussed the general rule that defects in verification are irregularities that can be waived if not timely objected to, and that such objections cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. It was also stated that if the original complaint was verified, the failure to make that fact appear of record would not prejudice substantial rights or affect jurisdiction. The Court would not assume that jurisdiction was taken without the required verification unless the contrary appeared affirmatively of record. On the substitution of parties: The Court held that the action to recover possession of real estate, instituted during the lifetime of the original plaintiff, survives to her executor or administrator. The law expressly authorizes the administrator to prosecute such actions in the right of the deceased, and the court properly permitted the plaintiff administrator to be substituted in place of the original plaintiff, citing sections 702 and 703 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On the admissibility of documents: The documents objected to were admitted to establish the landlord and tenant relationship between the original plaintiff and the defendant. The Court found them competent and pertinent to the issue of whether the occupant stood in a contractual relation of tenant to the plaintiff and had failed to pay rent after demand. The fact that these documents might also tend to establish ownership, which was not the issue in this specific action, did not render them inadmissible as far as they were pertinent to the real issue. On the sufficiency of evidence: Upon a review of all the testimony, the Court was unable to conclude that the evidence of record did not sustain the findings of the trial court. Therefore, the findings of fact were deemed supported by the evidence.
Main Doctrine
In an appeal from a justice of the peace court to the Court of First Instance, a new complaint filed in the Court of First Instance need not be verified. Objections to the lack of verification of a pleading are generally waived if not raised at the proper time and manner.