G.R. No.: L-10270

FACTS:
1. Emilio Custodio, as administrator of the estate of Simeon Calinawan, initially filed a complaint against Andres Calinawan for the delivery of properties allegedly unlawfully held by the defendant.
2. The defendant’s demurrer was sustained, and the complaint was dismissed. The parties stipulated to file an amended complaint in the names of the heirs.
3. On May 10, 1912, an amended complaint was filed by Saturnino and Florencio Calinawan (heirs) against Andres Calinawan (also an heir) for the partition of both real and personal property left by their common predecessors, Simeon Calinawan and Dominga Mocende.
4. The defendant filed a demurrer, arguing lack of cause of action and lack of jurisdiction. The trial court sustained the demurrer on October 21, 1912, holding that the special remedy of partition under Section 181 of Act No. 190 applied only to real estate. It ordered the plaintiffs to strike out the references to personal property from the complaint.
5. The plaintiffs moved for reconsideration. On August 30, 1913, the court denied the motion, but the plaintiffs were not notified of this order.
6. On November 13, 1913, the defendant moved to dismiss the case because the plaintiffs had not amended their complaint. On the same day, the plaintiffs manifested their intention to appeal the earlier orders.
7. On November 14, 1913, the trial court granted the defendant’s motion and dismissed the case. The plaintiffs appealed.

ISSUE:
1. Did the trial court err in sustaining the demurrer and ordering the removal of references to personal property from the complaint, based on the interpretation that partition under the law applies only to real estate?
2. Did the trial court err in dismissing the case for the plaintiffs’ failure to amend their complaint, when they were not notified of the order denying their motion for reconsideration?

RULING:

2. Yes, the trial court erred in dismissing the case. The dismissal was improper because the plaintiffs were never notified of the August 30, 1913, order denying their motion for reconsideration, as required by Rule 3 of the Rules of the Courts of First Instance. Since they had no notice, the period for them to amend their complaint never began to run. The plaintiffs only learned of the order when the defendant moved for dismissal, at which point they promptly manifested their appeal.

DISPOSITIVE:
The Supreme Court set aside the orders dated October 21, 1912, August 30, 1913, and November 14, 1913. The demurrer to the amended complaint was overruled. The case was remanded for further proceedings under the amended complaint filed by Saturnino and Florencio Calinawan. No costs were awarded.