De los Santos v. Provincial Sheriff of Rizal
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiffs alleged peaceful and continuous possession, in good faith under a claim of ownership, of two parcels of land since before 1890. They claimed to have constructed approximately 150 houses and made other improvements on these lands. Plaintiffs further alleged that the defendants, in conspiracy, were demolishing these houses and destroying other improvements, causing damages amounting to P150,000. They also asserted that the land subject to execution in a prior case (Bank of the Philippine Island vs. Acuña) was different from and not included within the parcels they claimed. Procedural History: Four complaints were successively filed. Demurrers were sustained for the original, first amended, and second amended complaints. The trial court, in an order dated November 27, 1934, dismissed the fourth and last amended complaint upon petition of the defendants. This dismissal was based on the fact that the last amended complaint was filed beyond the time fixed by a previous court order of October 30, 1934, and also because it suffered from the same defects as the prior demurred complaints. The Petition: The plaintiffs appealed the order of dismissal, questioning the trial court's actions.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court had the authority to dismiss the case or disregard the fourth amended complaint for being filed out of time. Whether the third amended complaint (to which the demurrer was sustained) stated facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Whether a defect of parties is a valid ground for the dismissal of an action.
Ruling
The order appealed from is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court with instructions to require the defendants to answer the third amended complaint within ten days from receipt of the decision and to proceed with the case.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that the trial court committed no error in disallowing the fourth amended complaint. Under Section 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Rule 14 of the Court of First Instance, the court is vested with the authority to fix the time within which pleadings adjudged defective may be amended. This is an incidental power of every court to compel obedience to its judgments and orders under Section 11, paragraph 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Consequently, the trial court was authorized to disregard the pleading filed beyond the ten-day period. However, the Court clarified that the dismissal order should be interpreted as referring back to the third amended complaint, the sufficiency of which was the actual matter of contention following the sustainment of the demurrer. On Issue 2: The Court ruled that the third amended complaint was sufficient. Applying the doctrine in Lizarraga Hermanos v. Yap Tico, a complaint is sufficient if it fairly apprises the defendant of the plaintiff's real claims. The plaintiffs' allegations of peaceful possession since 1890, the specific acts of demolition by the defendants, and the claim of ownership are ultimate facts. The Court emphasized that a general allegation of ownership is a sufficient averment, and requiring the plaintiffs to set forth the specific extent of shares or the nature of their title would be requiring evidentiary details, which is not required at the pleading stage according to authorities like Robinson v. City of Glendale. On Issue 3: The Court held that a defect of parties does not justify a dismissal of the action. Relying on Sanchez v. Court of First Instance of Rizal, the Court stated that when a demurrer is presented for a defect or misjoinder of parties and found well-founded, the court's duty is not to dismiss but to order the inclusion of necessary parties or the exclusion of misjoined parties. Therefore, the trial court's dismissal of the entire case on the ground of the demurrer was improper under Philippine procedural rules.
Main Doctrine
A trial court has the authority to fix the time for amending pleadings and to disregard pleadings filed beyond the period fixed. A demurrer based on ambiguity or failure to state a cause of action will be overruled if the allegations, taken as true, sufficiently apprise the defendant of the plaintiff's claims and establish a basis for relief. A general allegation of ownership is sufficient to plead ownership.