Tan v. Echauz
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The plaintiff and three other individuals formed a partnership in China to conduct business in the Philippine Islands. One partner, Yap-Jongco, managed the Iloilo store until his death in April 1901. Subsequently, the plaintiff, by agreement with the remaining partners, took over the management of the business. This action was filed by the plaintiff to recover the value of goods sold by the partnership to the defendant during Yap-Jongco's lifetime. Procedural History: Due to difficulties in translating and interpreting evidence, the parties agreed to refer the case to a referee. The referee submitted a report, to which no objections were made. The court then entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff based on the referee's report. The defendant excepted to the judgment and moved for a new trial, which was denied, and he also excepted to the denial. The Petition: The defendant appealed the judgment, raising assignments of error concerning the plaintiff's legal capacity to sue and the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment.
Issue(s)
Whether the plaintiff has the legal capacity to sue. Whether the evidence is sufficient to support the judgment.
Ruling
The judgment of the court below is affirmed. The costs of the instance are against the appellant. After twenty days, judgment shall be rendered in accordance herewith and the case remanded to the court below for execution.
Ratio Decidendi
On the plaintiff's legal capacity to sue: The Court held that the defendant's objection regarding the plaintiff's legal capacity to sue was not properly raised. While the defendant alleged in his answer that the plaintiff lacked legal capacity, the defect of parties plaintiff, caused by the failure to join the other surviving partners, appeared on the face of the complaint. This defect should have been presented by demurrer or answer as per Section 114 and Section 91, paragraph 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. By failing to do so, the defendant waived this objection under Section 93 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court clarified that this was a defect of parties plaintiff, not a want of legal capacity to sue. Even if the partnership was dissolved by the death of Yap-Jongco, the remaining partners became the sole owners of the assets, and the plaintiff, by agreement, managed the business. The failure to join the other partners was a procedural defect, not a fundamental lack of standing. On the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment: The Court affirmed the judgment, stating that in cases tried by the inferior court or referred to a referee and approved by the court, the findings must be sustained unless the evidence shows them to be wrong. The Court reviewed the evidence presented by the appellant. Section 140 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that the court shall render judgment as if the facts had been found by the judge himself. Furthermore, when a motion for a new trial is based on Section 497, paragraph 3, the appellate court must examine the proofs presented by the appellant and render judgment as justice and equity require. The evidence presented did not show that the referee's findings as to the amounts due were incorrect. Regarding the defendant's counterclaim, the evidence brought by him did not show that any proof was introduced, leading the Court to consider it abandoned.
Main Doctrine
A defect of parties plaintiff, appearing on the face of the complaint, must be raised by demurrer or answer; failure to do so constitutes a waiver of the objection. A claim for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence under Section 497, paragraph 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure allows the appellate court to review all evidence presented.