G.R. No. 140954 . April 12, 2005.
HEIRS OF BERTULDO HINOG, represented by Bertuldo Hinog III, Petitioners, vs. HON. ACHILLES MELICOR, Presiding Judge, RTC, Branch 4, Tagbilaran City, Bohol, and CUSTODIO BALANE, RUFO BALANE, HONORIO BALANE, and TOMAS BALANE, Respondents.

FACTS

Private respondents, the Balanes, filed a complaint for Recovery of Ownership and Possession, Removal of Construction, and Damages against Bertuldo Hinog. They alleged they own a parcel of land and merely allowed Hinog to use a portion for ten years. After the period, Hinog refused to vacate and claimed ownership. Hinog, in his Answer, claimed ownership via a Deed of Sale. During trial, Hinog died. His new counsel filed a motion to expunge the complaint, arguing the trial court never acquired jurisdiction because the Balanes failed to specify the amount of damages claimed to determine the correct docket fees, citing the Manchester ruling.
The trial court initially granted the motion, expunging the complaint and nullifying proceedings for non-payment of correct fees. However, it allowed the Balanes to pay the deficiency. Upon payment, the court reinstated the case. Petitioners, the heirs, opposed reinstatement and later sought to file a supplemental pleading with a new Deed of Sale. The trial court denied the supplemental pleading, deeming the new document waived, and proceeded with the case despite petitioners’ argument that the initial expunction left no valid complaint to reinstate.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in: (1) reinstating the case after initially expunging the complaint for non-payment of docket fees, and (2) denying petitioners’ supplemental pleading.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion. On the first issue, the Court clarified that the Manchester doctrine on strict jurisdictional payment of docket fees was subsequently relaxed in Sun Insurance. The prevailing rule is that a court may allow payment of the deficiency within a reasonable time and not beyond the applicable prescriptive period. The trial court’s act of reinstating the case after the Balanes paid the correct fees was proper; the initial order of expunction was an interlocutory order subject to rectification. The payment cured the jurisdictional defect.
On the second issue, the trial court correctly denied the supplemental pleading. A supplemental pleading under Rule 10 covers facts occurring after the original pleading. The Deed of Sale dated 1982 pertained to a transaction that occurred long before the original Answer was filed in 1991. It constituted a new matter or defense that was available at the time of the original pleading and was therefore deemed waived for not being asserted therein. The trial court’s discretion to disallow it was not exercised arbitrarily. Furthermore, the Court noted petitioners’ counsel failed to properly effect the substitution of parties after Hinog’s death as required by the Rules, which contributed to the procedural disarray but did not constitute grave abuse by the trial court.