G.R. No. L-11836; January 30, 1959
MANUEL M. COSTA, plaintiff-appellant, vs. GENOVEVA V. BALMES, defendant-appellee.

FACTS

Plaintiff-appellant Manuel M. Costa filed a complaint alleging he is the natural child of the deceased Alejandro Costa, recognized by authentic writing and by support. He claimed that upon Alejandro’s death, his estate was settled intestate without including him as an heir or partitioning any properties to him, despite defendant-appellee Genoveva Balmes (Alejandro’s widow) being the only other heir. The complaint prayed for an inventory and partition including him. Defendant’s answer denied the allegations and raised special defenses, including that the action for acknowledgment was improper as the alleged father was deceased and plaintiff was of legal age. Plaintiff moved to admit an amended complaint, adding that the authentic writing was an affidavit attached to his marriage papers (now lost) and, alternatively, that he is a compulsory heir under Article 287 of the Civil Code. The trial court refused to admit the amended complaint for failing to indicate amendments with marks as required by the Rules of Court and later dismissed the original complaint, holding that plaintiff failed to allege proper evidence of voluntary recognition under Article 278 and that the action was barred by the prior intestate proceedings where plaintiff did not oppose.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court erred in refusing to admit the amended complaint.
2. Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint on the grounds that it failed to state a cause of action and was barred by the prior intestate proceedings.

RULING

1. Yes, the trial court erred in refusing to admit the amended complaint. The technical requirement to mark amendments should not hamper justice, especially as the amendments included a new alternative cause of action that was apparent without such markings. The refusal unjustly deprived plaintiff of his alternative claim.
2. Yes, the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint. The allegation that the authentic writing was lost does not mean it is non-existent. Moreover, the complaint stated plaintiff was not served with the partition nor included in the intestate proceedings, so the bar of prior settlement was incorrectly applied. The alternative cause of action in the amended complaint was justified and should not have been ignored.
The appealed orders are set aside, and the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. No costs.