G.R. No. 5938
JOSE MA. IBAÑEZ DE ALDECOA, plaintiff-appellant, vs. JOSE FORTIS, ET AL., defendants-appellees.
September 16, 1910

FACTS: The plaintiff, Jose Ma. Ibañez de Aldecoa, brought an action personally against Jose Fortis personally. The complaint sought to set aside a sale of certain goods belonging to the estate of Julian Almenara, alleging that the defendant, while acting as administrator of Almenara’s estate, bought the property for his own benefit in violation of law, thereby defrauding the estate.

The plaintiff’s cause of action stemmed from his role as administrator of Antonio de Inchusagarri’s estate, which was a duly allowed creditor of Almenara’s estate. The complaint explicitly stated that the action should have been brought by the plaintiff as administrator of Inchusagarri’s estate against the defendant as administrator of Almenara’s estate.

The Court of First Instance sustained a demurrer to the complaint on the ground that the action was wrongfully brought in the name of the plaintiff personally, and subsequently dismissed the complaint without giving the plaintiff an opportunity to amend. The plaintiff appealed this decision.

ISSUE: Whether the Court of First Instance, after sustaining a demurrer based on the plaintiff bringing the action in a personal capacity instead of as an administrator, should have dismissed the complaint outright without allowing an opportunity to amend.

RULING: The Supreme Court held that the lower court was correct in sustaining the demurrer, as it was “beyond question” that the action was wrongfully brought by the plaintiff personally instead of in his capacity as administrator. However, the Court also ruled that the lower court erred in dismissing the complaint outright without giving the plaintiff an opportunity to amend.

Citing Section 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure and previous rulings (Balderrama vs. Compañia General de Tabacos de Filipinas, Molina vs. La Electricista, Serrano vs. Serrano), the Court emphasized that when a demurrer to a complaint is sustained and the complaint is dismissed, the court must give the plaintiff an opportunity to amend the complaint to cure the objection raised by the demurrer. This was not done by the lower court.

Therefore, the judgment of the lower court was modified. The cause was remanded with instructions for the lower court to give the plaintiff five days, after due notice of this decision, to present an amended complaint. If an amended complaint is not filed within that time, the lower court shall then enter an order dismissing the complaint upon the merits.