Valmilero v. Kong Chang Seng
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that the defendant was indebted to him in the sum of one thousand and fifty pesos (P1,050), Philippine currency, which became due and payable on the 6th day of the month (October, 1914). Procedural History: The defendant interposed a demurrer, alleging that the complaint did not contain facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and that it was ambiguous, unintelligible, and vague. The trial court overruled the demurrer. The defendant answered, admitting the execution of an instrument acknowledging the debt but claiming an extension of time for payment. The plaintiff presented the written instrument as evidence. The defendant presented no evidence. The trial court rendered judgment for the plaintiff. The Petition: The defendant appealed the decision of the trial court.
Issue(s)
Whether the demurrer to the complaint should have been sustained on the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Whether the defects in the complaint were cured by the introduction of evidence.
Ruling
The judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the demurrer: The Court held that the demurrer was properly overruled because it was defective in form. According to the settled doctrine of the Court, a demurrer must not only state the objections to the complaint as set out in the Code of Civil Procedure but must also state the grounds on which the objections rest. The demurrer in this case was couched only in the language of the Code, stating the objections but not the grounds, thus overlooking the requirement that the grounds must also be stated. The trial court correctly based its decision on this formal defect. On the issue of curing defects by evidence: The Court found that while the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, evidence was introduced without objection from the defendant to prove the cause of action that the plaintiff clearly intended to allege. The reception of this evidence cured the defects in the complaint and established a cause of action against the appellant. Since the appellant did not produce evidence to overcome that offered by the appellee, the trial court had no alternative but to enter the judgment appealed from. This principle is consistent with prior rulings of the Court, such as in Lizarraga Hermanos v. Yap Tico and De la Riva v. Molina Salvador.
Main Doctrine
A demurrer to a complaint, though defective in form for failing to state the grounds upon which the objections rest, may be overruled. If evidence is subsequently introduced without objection to prove the cause of action intended to be alleged, the defects in the complaint are cured, and a cause of action is established.