G.R. No. L-2822 - OCTOBER 1906 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-2822October 30, 1906 Valentin Santos, et al. vs. Leoniza Yturralde, et al. G.R. No. L-2486October 30, 1906 Leocadio Joaquin vs. Lamberto Avellano G.R. No. L-2024October 30, 1906 United States vs. W. W. Richards G.R. No. L-3291October 29, 1906 United States vs. Policarpio Talbanos G.R. No. L-2944October 29, 1906 United States vs. Filomeno Bacarrisas G.R. No. L-2685October 29, 1906 C. M. Cotherman vs. Go-Pongco, et al. G.R. No. L-2776October 27, 1906 Bruno Rementeria vs. Lope de Lara, et al. G.R. No. L-1664October 27, 1906 Esteban Arabes, et al. vs. Diego Urian, et al. G.R. No. L-3547October 26, 1906 Lorenza Paez vs. Jose Berenguer, et al. G.R. No. L-2934October 26, 1906 Juan Molina vs. La Electricista G.R. No. L-2902October 26, 1906 Natalia Catindig vs. Francisco Catindig, et al. G.R. No. L-2278October 26, 1906 Sua Tico vs. Carlos Gemora G.R. No. L-1382October 26, 1906 United States vs. Que Bing, et al. G.R. No. L-2999October 25, 1906 United States vs. Perfecto Villos G.R. No. L-2589October 24, 1906 Mariano Devesa vs. Alejandro Montelibano G.R. No. L-2900October 23, 1906 Maximo Cortes vs. Manila Jockey Club, et al. G.R. No. L-2888October 23, 1906 Hung-Man-Yoc vs. Kieng-Chiong-Seng, et al. G.R. No. L-2947October 19, 1906 United States vs. Vicente Ruiz G.R. No. L-2812October 18, 1906 Longinos Javier vs. Segundo Javier, et al. G.R. No. L-3242October 17, 1906 Daniel Tanchoco vs. Simplicio Suarez, et al. G.R. No. L-2919October 12, 1906 United States, et al. vs. Lucas Kanleon G.R. No. L-2977October 9, 1906 United States vs. Jerry Clauck G.R. No. L-2875October 3, 1906 Elena Javier vs. Ceferino Suico, et al. G.R. No. L-3038October 2, 1906 United States vs. Cenon Angeles, et al. G.R. No. L-2939October 2, 1906 Jaime Serra vs. Go-Huna G.R. No. L-2886October 2, 1906 Valentin Reyes vs. Juana Tanchiatco, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Valentin Santos, et al. vs. Leoniza Yturralde, et al. Leocadio Joaquin vs. Lamberto Avellano United States vs. W. W. Richards United States vs. Policarpio Talbanos United States vs. Filomeno Bacarrisas C. M. Cotherman vs. Go-Pongco, et al. Bruno Rementeria vs. Lope de Lara, et al. Esteban Arabes, et al. vs. Diego Urian, et al. Lorenza Paez vs. Jose Berenguer, et al. Juan Molina vs. La Electricista Natalia Catindig vs. Francisco Catindig, et al. Sua Tico vs. Carlos Gemora United States vs. Que Bing, et al. United States vs. Perfecto Villos Mariano Devesa vs. Alejandro Montelibano Maximo Cortes vs. Manila Jockey Club, et al. Hung-Man-Yoc vs. Kieng-Chiong-Seng, et al. United States vs. Vicente Ruiz Longinos Javier vs. Segundo Javier, et al. Daniel Tanchoco vs. Simplicio Suarez, et al. United States, et al. vs. Lucas Kanleon United States vs. Jerry Clauck Elena Javier vs. Ceferino Suico, et al. United States vs. Cenon Angeles, et al. Jaime Serra vs. Go-Huna Valentin Reyes vs. Juana Tanchiatco, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-2822 October 30, 1906
VALENTIN SANTOS, ET AL.,plaintiffs-appellants,
vs.
LEONIZA YTURRALDE, ET AL.,defendants-appellees.
Mariano Monroy, for appellants.
Chicote, Miranda and Sierra, for appellees.
CARSON,J.:
Defendants filed a demurrer to the complaint in this case on the ground that there was another action pending between the same parties for the same cause. No reference was made to such action in the complaint, but defendants filed with their demurrer certain affidavits in support their allegation.lawphil.net
The demurrer was sustained by the trial court and judgment entered dismissing the complaint, and from this judgment the plaintiffs appeal.
One of the grounds for demurrer set out in section 91 of the Code Civil Procedure is as follows:
(3) That there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause —
But section 92 provides 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.
There can be no doubt that the trial court erred in sustaining this demurrer on a ground which does not appear on the face of the complaint, and of which it had no knowledge aside from that furnished by the defendants in the affidavits which accompany their demurrer.
Counsel for defendants in this court suggest that the truth of this new matter set up in the demurrer was substantially admitted by the plaintiff in his written argument are not sufficient in such cases to cure a fatal defect in the pleading and the court was strictly limited to the allegations of the complaint in ruling on a demurrer thereto. In order that new facts might be considered other than those set out in the original complaint it would have been necessary for the plaintiff to amend his complaint, and the matter set up or admitted in his argument of the demurrer can not be considered as such an amendment.
The judgment of the trial court is reversed without special condemnation of costs, and after ten days from the filing hereof judgment will be entered in accordance herewith and the record returned to the court from whence it came for proper procedure. So ordered.
Arellano, C. J., Torres, Mapa, Johnson and Tracey, JJ., concur.
Willard, J., did not sit in this case.