Marzon v. Udtujan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiff Lorenzo Marzon commenced an action against defendants Juliano Udtujan, Cleto Marzon, Rosendo Bauya, and Valeriano Bauya to recover P1,700 as damages for the destruction of 500 banana plants, 100 "viga" plants, and 50 abaca plants. Procedural History: The defendants filed a general demurrer to the complaint, which was overruled. Subsequently, they filed a general denial and a special defense alleging lack of jurisdiction. The lower court, presided over by Hon. Isidro Paredes, rendered a decision in favor of the plaintiff, ordering the defendants to pay P900 jointly and severally, with costs. The Petition: The defendants appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning as errors the lower court's holding that the acts were proven to have occurred in May 1907 and that it had jurisdiction, and that the action had not prescribed.
Issue(s)
Whether the lower court erred in holding that the defendants committed the acts in May 1907 and that it had jurisdiction over the case. Whether the plaintiff's action had prescribed.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court.
Ratio Decidendi
On the first issue (acts committed and jurisdiction): The Court noted that the defendants, in their brief, admitted to having gone upon the plaintiff's land and cut down the plants in May 1897, which resulted in damages. This admission established the commission of the acts alleged in the complaint. Regarding jurisdiction, the Court stated that while there might be a question about the requirement for such an action to be brought within the jurisdiction where the land is located, the complaint alleged the land was in the "barrio of Ginagdanan, municipality of Argaw." The court could take judicial notice that the municipality of Argaw was within its jurisdiction. Furthermore, the lower court found strong reasons to believe that the witnesses for the plaintiff, who stated the acts were done in 1897, intended to say 1907, and the Supreme Court found no reason to modify this finding after a full consideration of the evidence. The defendants' admission of the acts, even if dated 1897, still established their liability for damages. On the second issue (prescription): The Court held that the question of prescription was neither raised by demurrer nor by answer in the lower court and therefore could not be raised for the first time on appeal. The Court cited Domingo vs. Osorio (7 Phil. Rep., 405) for the principle that prescription must be raised by answer and cannot be raised by demurrer. Even if the damages were committed in 1897, the failure to raise the issue of prescription properly in the lower court precluded its consideration on appeal.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court, holding that the defendants were liable for damages for the destruction of the plaintiff's plants. The Court found that the defendants' admission of the acts alleged in the complaint, despite their defense of lack of jurisdiction, established their liability. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the issue of prescription could not be raised for the first time on appeal as it was not raised in the lower court.