GR L 11390; (March, 1918) (Digest)
March 7, 2026GR L 11595; (March, 1918) (Digest)
March 7, 2026G.R. No. L-11900; March 16, 1918
TERESA GUERRERO, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. SIA YUTIAN (alias Tiana), defendant-appellee.
FACTS:
Plaintiffs Teresa Guerrero, Fortunata Guerrero, and Fausta Guerrero, legitimate daughters of the deceased Jose Mariano Guerrero, filed a complaint against defendant Sia Yutian (alias Tiana). They alleged that upon their father’s death in 1885, his brother Tuana took possession and administered the estate on their behalf. Upon Tuana’s death, the defendant, a nephew of Tuana and Jose Mariano Guerrero, received the property to continue its administration. The plaintiffs claimed that from their father’s death until 1905, they received a portion of the estate’s earnings for their subsistence from the administrators, but the defendant ceased these deliveries after 1905. Despite repeated demands, the defendant failed to render an accounting or deliver their share. The plaintiffs sought recovery of the alleged estate valued at P27,800 and accumulated earnings of P10,000. The defendant repeatedly demurred to the complaints. The trial court sustained the demurrers, and after the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint which the court found insufficient, it dismissed the case with costs. The plaintiffs appealed.
ISSUE:
Whether the trial court erred in sustaining the defendant’s demurrer to the third amended complaint and in dismissing the action.
RULING:
No, the trial court did not err. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the case. The Court found the lower court entirely justified in its rulings, as the third amended complaint failed to state a sufficient cause of action and did not comply with the court’s order to file a substantially amended complaint. However, in the interest of equity, the Supreme Court modified the order of dismissal. Following common practice, the dismissal was made “without prejudice,” thereby permitting the plaintiffs to institute a new action if they so choose. The order was affirmed as modified, with costs against the appellants.