Marcelo v. Bermudez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The plaintiff, Josefa Marcelo, filed a complaint concerning certain parcels of land. The defendants, Feliciano (alias Felix Bermudez) and Benito Alcantara, demurred to the complaint. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Pangasinan sustained the defendants' demurrer on January 7, 1935, finding that the facts alleged in the complaint did not constitute a cause of action. The court noted that the lands were registered in the name of the defendant Feliciano, who was the plaintiff's husband. The court suggested that if deceit was involved due to the husband's alleged lack of mental capacity, the proper action would be to seek guardianship and file a complaint to annul the deed. The Appeal: The plaintiff was notified of the order sustaining the demurrer on January 17, 1935. However, she failed to file an amended complaint or seek leave to do so within the prescribed period. She filed a motion for new trial on January 30, 1935, which was beyond the period allowed by Rule 14 of the Rules of Court of First Instance. The plaintiff appealed the order of dismissal.
Issue(s)
Whether the plaintiff's failure to amend her complaint within the prescribed period after the demurrer was sustained constitutes a waiver of her right to amend. Whether the plaintiff's motion for new trial was filed within the reglementary period.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan dismissing the plaintiff's complaint. The Court held that the plaintiff's failure to amend her complaint within the five-day period prescribed by Rule 14 of the Rules of Court of First Instance constituted a waiver of her right to amend. Consequently, her motion for new trial was also deemed untimely and without basis.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that Rule 14 of the Rules of Court of First Instance mandates that when a demurrer to a complaint is sustained, the party has five days to amend the complaint, unless a different period is fixed by the court. The plaintiff was notified of the order sustaining the demurrer on January 17, 1935. Her failure to file an amended complaint or seek leave to do so within five days from January 18, 1935, implied a waiver of her right to amend. The Court found that the order sustaining the demurrer did not prohibit her from amending her pleading, and by allowing the period to elapse without action, she indicated her intention not to file any amendment. Therefore, the order of dismissal was in accordance with law. On Issue 2: The Court ruled that the plaintiff's motion for new trial, filed on January 30, 1935, was not filed within the reglementary period. Section 145 of Act No. 190, which allows thirty days to ask for a new trial, was not applicable in this instance. Instead, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court of First Instance, which governs amendments after a demurrer is sustained, was the applicable rule. Since the plaintiff failed to amend her complaint within the five-day period prescribed by Rule 14, she waived her right to do so, and her subsequent motion for new trial on the ground that the order was contrary to law was therefore without basis. The appeal was found to be without merit.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint due to her failure to amend it within the five-day period prescribed by Rule 14 of the Rules of Court of First Instance after her demurrer was sustained. The Court emphasized that such failure constitutes a waiver of the right to amend, and the subsequent motion for new trial based on the order being contrary to law was also denied as the order was in accordance with the rules. The plaintiff's proper recourse, as indicated by the lower court, would have been to seek the appointment of a guardian and file an action to annul the deed if the husband lacked mental capacity, rather than proceeding with the current complaint which lacked a cause of action.