GR 43364; (September, 1976) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-43364 September 30, 1976
ADELA SALAZAR, TEOFILA SALAZAR, CONSOLACION SALAZAR PATIU, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE JUDGE FERNANDO M. BARTOLOME, FELISA, LUCIANO, BRIGIDO, REGINO, EUFEMIA, MELQUIADES, ADELA, PACITA, BIENVENIDO, ANGELA, SOLEDAD, FLORENTINO, FELICITA, NICOLAS, RICARDO, PABLO, all surnamed CASTRO; JOSE, ANGELINA, ONOFRE PABLITO, VICTORIA all surnamed SANTOS, ENCARNACION SANTOS VDA. DE NUCUP, the HEIRS OF ROMAN CASTRO, namely: ELEUTERIA VITAL, RUFINO, HERMINIA, VICTORIA, RICARDO, all surnamed CASTRO, the latter is survived by HELEN SUBA, RODRIGO and RICARDO CASTRO; the HEIRS OF EXEQUIEL SANTOS namely: AVELINA RUIZ; NOEL, FIDES, ROSARIO, and ARIEL, all surnamed SANTOS, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners filed an action for annulment of extra-judicial partition against private respondents. The original complaint named as defendants “the heirs of Roman Castro” and “the heirs of Exequiel Santos” without specifying their individual names. Private respondents moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground, among others, that the court did not acquire jurisdiction over these unspecified heirs. The respondent Judge, opining that the defect could not be cured by amendment, dismissed the complaint.
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. Notwithstanding this denial, petitioners subsequently filed a motion to admit an amended complaint, which now specifically named the individual heirs of Roman Castro and Exequiel Santos. Private respondents opposed this motion. The respondent Judge denied the motion for admission of the amended complaint for lack of merit. Petitioners then filed the instant petition for review on certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent Judge gravely abused his discretion in denying the petitioners’ motion to admit their amended complaint.
RULING
Yes, the respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court set aside the challenged order and directed the admission of the amended complaint. The legal logic is anchored on the fundamental principle that amendments to pleadings are favored and should be liberally allowed to serve the ends of justice. The Court reiterated the well-established rule that when a court sustains a demurrer or motion to dismiss, it is error to dismiss the complaint without giving the plaintiff an opportunity to amend, unless the defect is incurable, such as lack of jurisdiction.
The defect in the original complaint was merely one of form—the failure to specify the names of certain heirs—which is curable by amendment. This is explicitly supported by Section 14, Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Court, which allows a party to sue a defendant under a designation when the true name is unknown and mandates the amendment of the pleading once the identity is discovered. Furthermore, a motion to dismiss is not considered a responsive pleading; thus, a party may amend its pleading once as a matter of right before a responsive pleading is served. The amendment was presented to cure a formal defect and to properly bring all indispensable parties before the court, ensuring a complete adjudication of the controversy. The denial of this opportunity was a reversible error.