Lazo v. Lazo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The plaintiff-appellee filed a complaint for the recovery of a parcel of land against the defendants-appellants. Procedural History: The defendants interposed a demurrer to the complaint, which the trial court overruled. The trial court subsequently decided the suit in favor of the plaintiff. The Appeal: The defendants appealed the trial court's decision, assigning as their first error the action of the trial court in overruling their demurrer. They argued that the trial court was aware of another pending suit between the same parties concerning the same land, even though this fact was not stated in the complaint. They contended that this knowledge should have led the court to sustain the demurrer on the ground of 'lis pendens'.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in overruling the demurrer to the complaint when the ground for demurrer (pendency of another action) was not apparent from the face of the complaint. Whether the pendency of another action, if known to the court but not pleaded in the complaint, can be a valid ground for demurrer.
Ruling
The Supreme Court set aside the judgment appealed from. It ordered the case to be restored to the status of answer to the complaint and to proceed with the trial according to law, without special finding as to costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the trial court did not err in overruling the demurrer. The Court emphasized that a demurrer can only be based on objections apparent on the face of the complaint. Since the complaint did not state any fact or make any allusion to the existence of another suit in the Court of Land Registration, the ground of 'lis pendens' was not properly raised by way of demurrer. The Court cited its own ruling in Liquete vs. Dario, stating that a demurrer to a complaint can have no object other than to raise questions of law upon the facts alleged in the complaint. Therefore, the first assignment of error could not be considered. On Issue 2: The Court acknowledged the defendants' argument that the trial court had knowledge of the other pending case. However, it clarified that the law does not permit such an interpretation for a demurrer. Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure explicitly states that when any of the matters enumerated in section ninety-one do not appear upon the face of the complaint, the objection can only be taken by answer. The defendants failed to set up the pendency of another action as a defense in their answer. Despite this procedural misstep, the Court, invoking Section 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure regarding liberal construction to promote speedy justice and the importance of stability of law concerning 'res adjudicata', decided to restore the case to the status of answer to allow the 'lis pendens' issue to be properly decided on its merits.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court reiterated that a demurrer to a complaint is a pleading that raises a question of law based solely on the facts alleged in the complaint. It cannot be based on facts not presented on the face of the pleading. If a ground for demurrer, such as the pendency of another action, is not apparent from the complaint, the objection must be raised in the defendant's answer.