Teodoro Vano, petitioner, vs. Hipolito Alo, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Bohol, Pedro Dumadag and Esmerio Jumamuy, respondents, G.R. no. L-7220, July 30, 1954 [Supreme Court decisions]

Title

Language

English

Source

XIX (10) October 31, 1954

Year

1954

Subject

Actions and defenses (Law)

Causes of action

Appellate court – Bohol

Philippines. Court of First Instance – Bohol

Philippines. Supreme Court

Judges

Vano, Teodoro

Alo, Hipolito

Dumadag, Pedro

Jumamuy, Esmerio

Rights

In Copyright - Educational Use Permitted

Abstract

Where the complaint. specifically alleged that the defendants, claiming to be the president and general manager of an unregistered corporation, entered the contract by themselves, the presence of the members of the association is not essential to the final determination of the issue presented, the evident intent of the complaint is to make the officers directly responsible. The alleged responsibility of the members for the contract to the officers, who acted as their agents, is not at issue and need not be determined in the action to fix the responsibility of the officers to the plaintiff's intestate, hence said members are not indispensable in the action instituted.

Fulltext

TION BY COURT OR ADVERSE PARTY. - It ia the abeolute prerogative of the plaintiff to d 1 oose the theory upon which he predicates hi! right of action, or the pa rties he desire. to 1ue, without dictation or imposition by the court or the adverse party. Jf he makes a mistake in the choice of his r ight of action; or m that of the parties against whom he seeks to enforce it, that iii his own concern as he alone iruffers therefrom. ing of the complaint will Rhow that both Timoteo VHlegas, predecessor-in-interest of £he plaintiffs and Santos Belarmino, one of the defenrlp.nts, JJUrchased from the Rureau of Lands two Jots each, the former Lot No. 400 cnntaining 1>.n area of 83,579 sq . m. , snd the latter Lot No. 3211 containing an area of 61,578 sq. m.; that Lot No. 400 included the triar.gula1· portion now in question, and not Lot No. 3211, and that si.r.ce the date of it.I:! salf' to Timoteo Villegas, the latter had been in possession of Lot No. 400, :~. mcluding the triangular portion; that, in a re-survey made of those ID.; JD.; I D.; REMEDY OF OFFICERS SUED WHO DESIRF. TO IMPLEAD MEl!lHERS OF UNREGISTERED COFPORA· TION-THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT. - Where the plaintiff sue<l the officers alone, and the latter desire to implead the memberi.i of the unregistereJ corporation and m'.lke them equally responsible in the action, their remedy is by means of a third party complaint, in accord!lnce with Rule l:l of the Rules of Court. But they can not, crimpel the plaintiff to choose his defendants. He may Mt, at his own expense, be fo rced to implead any one who, under adverse 1iarty's theory, is to answer for the defendants' liability. Neither may the court compel him to furnish the means which defendants may avoid or mitigate their liability. lots in accordance with the cadastral law, Lot No. 3211 was subdivided into lots 3211-N, 4639, and 4640; that the original area of Lot No. 3211 was 61,578 sq. m., but after its subdivision into three lots, their total area was increased to 67,808 sq. tn., or a difference of 6,230 sq. m., with the result that the arl!a of Lot No. 400 became 76,591 sq. m. instead of its original area of 83,579 sq. m.; that defendant!:! know all the time that. the trlan gular portion in question was included in the sale made way back in 1910 by the Bureau of Lands to Timeoteo Villegas and not in th(, salP made in the same year by said Bureau to Santos · Belarmino, a s they likewise well knew that the lot bought by Timoteo Villegas, including the triangular portion, had always bc~n in continuous, open, public, notorious, and adverse possession of the plain- 4. tiffs and their predecessors-in-interest as exclusive owners. ID.; ID.; ID. ; ID.; I NDISPENSABLE PARTY AND PARTY JOINTLY OR ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE FOR OBLIGATION WHICH IS SUBJECT OF ACTION, DISTINGUISHED. -Where the complaint .specifically alleged that the defendants, purporting to be the president and general manager of an unregi!'\tered corporation, entered into the contract by themselves, the presence of the members of the association is not essential to the final determination of the issue presented, the evident intent of the complaint being to make the officers directly responsible. <Article 287, Code 'Jf Commerce, supra). The alleged responsibility of the m«rnhcrs for the contract to the officers, who acted as their agents, is not in issue and need not be determined in the action to fix the responsibility of the officers to plaintiff's intestate, hence said members are not indispensable in the action instituted. The foregoing facts unmistakably show: tll that the lot bought by plaintiffs' predecessors-in-interest included tl1e triangular rmrtion in dii;pute; <2) that said triangular portion was erroneously included in the lot bought by Santos Belarmino in a re-survey inade by the Bureau of Lands years later; <3) that defendants knew, or had actual or coJLstructivc knowkdge, of such mistake; and (4) de-fendants never claimed any right •if ownership or of pos:;ession of said portion until after the issuance of the title issued to them in Hli>2. Under these facts, it is obvious that defendant!: cannot claim to be purchasers in good faith of the J:M)rtion in que:stion Pven if they had paid the cOnsider:iticr. therefor with the sanction of the Bureau of Lands. (Cui & Joven v, Henson, 51 Phil, 606; Legarda & Prieto, 31 Phil. 590; Angeles v . Samia, 66 Phil. 444. ) It should be borne in mind that the complaint was dismissed not because of any evidence presented by the parties, or as a result of the trial i:m the merits, but merely on a motion dismii;s filed by the defendants. Such being the case, the sufficiency of the motion should be tested on the strength of the allegations of facts contained in the complaint, and on no other, If these allegations show a cause of action, or furnish sufficient basis by which the complaint cn.n be maintained, the Ci!mplaint should not be dismissed regardless of the defenses that may be averred by the defendants. It has been said that the test of the sufficiency of the facts alleged in a complaint, to constitute a cause of action, is whether or not, 3dmitting the fats alleged, the court could render a ve.lid judgment in accordance with the prayer of said complaint. <Paninsan v. Costales, 28 Phil. 487; Blny v, Batangas Transportation Co., 45 0. G. Supp. to No. 9, p. 1,) In our opinion, the allegations of the instant complaint are of this nature, and so the lower court enecl in dismissing it. Wherefore, tht- order appeakd from is set aside, The Court orders that this case be remanded tC" the lower court for further procecdingE, without pronounct-ment as to costs. pa,,·as, Pablo, Be11,r1zon, Paclilla, Montemayor, A. Reyes, J1t90, Labrador and Coneepcio11, J.J. x Teodoro Vallo, Petitio11er, vs. Hipolito Alo, as Judge of the Court oj First lnstancf! of Bohol, Pedro Dumadag and Esmenio Jumarnuy, Ne.~po~tdtmts, G. R. No. T...-7220, July SO, 1954, Labrador, J. 1. PARTIES; IMPLEADING OF REAL PARTIES, APPLICABLE TO PAHTIBS PLAINTIFF ONLY. - The rule requiring real parties to be impleaded is apph<.able to partieF- plaintiffs, not to parties defendant. :l.. ID.; ID. ; PLAINTFF CAN CHOOSE CAUSE OF ACTION AND PAHTIES HE DESIRES TO SUE WITHOUT IMPOSIRoque R. Lwipo for the petitioner. Victoria:no Tirlll for the respondents. DECISION LABRADOR, J.: Petitioner instituted this acti.in of certiorari to reverse an order of the Court of First Instanr.l: of Bohol refusing to admit hi! fourth amended complaint. The record discloses the following facts and circumstances ns a backg round for the petition: Around the yPar 1947 respondents herein Pedro Dumadag and Esmenio Jumamuy, purporting to be the president and general manager, respectively, of an unregistered corporation or association denominated APHA Cinematographic Shows, Inc., leased certRin theatrical eqmpments from the late .Jose Vaiio at an agreed monthly rental of P200. Jose Vaiio having died, his administrator, the pr& sent petitioner, filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Bohol for the return of the theatricel equipments and the payment of the agreed rentals. The -original complaint was filed in September, 1947. Upon the filing of this complaint tl>e association wa9 dissolved. Counsel for the defl'ndnnts below, respondents her~in, appears to have insisted that all the members of the association should be made parties defendants, but petitioner was not inclined lo do so. On J r.nuary 28, 1953, the court ordered petitioner'! •:ounsel to submit a fourth amended complaint. This complaint in part alleges: 2. That in or about Felm.:ary 1947, defendant pur porting to be the µresident and gt:ncral manager respectivP]y of the so-called "APRA" Cinematographic Shows Inc., leased from the late J ose Vniio, the aforementic>ncd Theatrical Equipment,. at an ngr<!l:d monthly rental of 1'\VO HUNDRED (200.00) PESOS, and that he <J ose Vaf10) shall PliY the expenl'es in the in•t.allat.ion, for the same shall be returned on' his demand. ; S. That said Theatrical Equipments mentioned in paraOctober 31, 1954 THE 1.AWYERS JOURNAL· 618 graph 1, harl been completely installed at the beginning of the month of 1''ebruary, 1947, at the " APBA" building Calape, Rohol. and since then the said 11how house beiUn its operation; 4. That up9n inquiry, the JJlaintiff was informed and so allege that the "APBA" Cinematographic Shows Inc., has never been registered, hence Dumadag anrl J umamuy who acted as the president and general manager respectively are the once made a s party defendants: Plaintiff did not include the members of the unregistered corpvration as p:irtics defendants. an<'l so they were not summoned. On September 14, Ul53, the court ti quo entered the order complaint>d of, which is as follows: The aseociation represented by defendants Pedro Dumadag and Esmenio Jumamuy, is not included a3 party clefendant in the fourth amended complaint. It is a legal requirement that any act!on should be brought against thr, real party in interest. In view of the opposition fi led by the defendants PedrO" Dumadag and Esmenio JumamuY, the court denies the admission of plaintiff's fourth amended complaint dated February 17, 1953, and objected to on the date of the trial. The fourth amended complaint <paragraph 2, supra) allegt>s that defendants, purporting to l:e tht: president and general manager of the unrcg-istered corporation, leased the theatrical equipments fr(lm the plaintiff, petitioner herein. Said defendants, according to the complaint, did not enter intc thr. contract in the name ·or on behalf of the corporation; consequently, the law applicable ls Article 287 of the Code of Commerce, which provides; of an action. The members <'f the unregistered corpon.tion could be responsible for the rental of the equipments jointli with thcir officers. But the complaint specifical.ly alleges th:it SAid office.rs entered into the contract by themselves, hence the presence of the members is not essential to the final determination of the iuue presented, the evident intent of the complaint being to make the officers directly responsible. CArticle 287, Cc-de cif Commerce.. supra.) The alleged responsibility of the members of the corporation for the contrict to the officers, who acted as their agents, is pot in issue and need not be determined in the action to fix the responsibility (If the officers to plaintiff's intestate, hence said members are not indispensable in the action instituted. WC! find that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to admit plaintiff's fourth amend('d -:omplaint. The writ prayed for is hereby granted, the order e<1mplained of reversed, and the complaint ordered admitted, and th£ court a q1to is hereby directed to proceed thereon according to the rules. With costs against respondents Pedro Dumadag and Esmenio Jumamuy . Paras, Pablo, Beng=ou., Padilla, Montemayor, Ale~ Reyn, Jugo, Bautistri Angelo, Concepcio11 and J. B. L. Reye$, J.J., concur XI The People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Ant0'1'lio Samaniego y Yoimg alias S11 Liong Bok alias Tony, Defendrint· .A_ ppellant, No. L-6085, Jnne 11, 1954, Concepcion, J. The People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-A ppellec, vs. Ong fnf1 alias Cre.~encio Ong, and Alfredo Torres y Sagaysay, Defendant.1ppellant, No. L-6086, June 11, 1954, Co:ncepcion, J. Art. 287. A contract entered into by the facl:(lr in his own name shall bind him directly to the person with whom it was made; but if the transaction was made for the account of the 1. principal, the other contracting party may bring his action either against the factor or against the principal. EVIDENCE; "RES I NTER ALIOS ACTA". - The testimonies of peace officers for the prosecution in other criminal cas<>s which were dismissed upon the ground that the confessions obtained by them, in connecti-.n with those cases, wC>re tainted with irregul:lrities are res mter alios acta and are not admissible The oppositicn of the responde:"lts to the admission of the fourth amended complaint is procedural in nature, i.e., that notwithstand· lng the fact that the APBA was not registered, all its members should be included as parties defendants as provided in section 15 oi Rule 3 of the Rules of Court. The trial court was of the opinion , ~n evidence. Y. JD.; ID.; ALIBI. - The uncorroborated testimony of one of the appellants that he was toick at home, when the offense charged was committed, cannot offset the J)()Sitive testimony of witnesses who saw him near the scene of th.:: crime. that the inclusion of the members was necessary as it considC'red them as "real parties in interest." In this respect, the trial court committed an error as the rule requiring real parties to be im· pleaded is applicable to parties plaintiffs, not to parties defendants. 3 · ID. ; CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; NEW TRIAL; NEWLY DI SCOVERED EVIDENCE. - Where the alleged newly discovered evidence merely tends to corroborate appellants' alibi to the effect that they were not present at the scene of the crime and could not have participated in its commission, the motion for new trial should be denied. It is the absolute prerogative of the plaintiff to choose the theory upon which he predicates his right of action, or the parties he desires to sue without dictation or imposition by the court or the adverse party. Tf he makes a mi!'takc in the choice of his ~!g~~r~!c:c:!~";h~; ii; 1~:at0;! ~::c~:.;ti:: ~~a:i~~ew;:;;e:ae t~::~~ 4. ID.; ID.; ID.; EVIDENCE INSUFFICIENT TO OFFSET THAT FOH THE PROSECUTION WHICH HAS BEEN POSITIVELY ESTABLISHED. - The testimony of the new witness for the appellants to the effect that they were the authors of the crime charged and that no other persons could have committed it can not offset the positive testimonies of two unbiased witnesses for tl'ie prosecution that they have st>en the appellants at the place of the occurrence at about the time of th~ perpetration of the offense charged, testimonies which were partly corroborated by one or the appellants himself. from. Granting that the members of the unregistered corporation may be held responsible, partly or wholly, for the agreement enter· ed into by the officers who acted for the corporation, the fact remains that the plaintiff in the case at bar chose not to implcad them, suing the officers alone. If the officers desire to implead them nnd make them equally responsible in the action, their remedy is by means of n third party complaint, in accordance with Ru!~ 12 of the Rules of Court. But they con not compel the plaintiff to choose his defendants. He may not, at his own expense, be forced to implead any one who, under adverse party's theory, is to answer for the defendants' liability. Neither may the court compel him to furnish the means by which defendants may J.void or mitigate their liability. This was in effect. what counsel for respondents wanted to compel the petitioner to do, and which the court wns persuaded to do force the plaintiff to include the members of the unregistered corporation a& parties defendants and when plaintiff refused to do so, it registered his fourth amended complaint. The court's or<ler, in so for a:. it demands the inclu<iion of the members of the unregistered corporation, has evidently been induced by a confusion between an indispensable party and o. party jointly or ultimatC>ly respom.ible for the obligation which is ~he subjE:ct Si:cto S, J. Carlos, Guillermo S. Santos, Eleuterio S. Abad, and Constantino B. A costa for the defendants and appellants. Gaudencio C. Cabacungan for defendant Antonio Samaniego. Solicitor General ,111an R. Liwag :ind Assistant Solicitor Gen6"'a/ Francisco Carreon for the plaintiff and appellee. DECISION CONCEPCION, J.: Un April 28, ) 950, at about 11 :00 p.m., the dead body of Ong Tin H11i wns found gagged and blindfolded in the Oxford Shoe 61'1 THE LAWYERS JOURNAL October 31, 195.i

Media