G.R. No. L-1917
CATALINO BALDERRAMA, plaintiff-appellant, vs. LA COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS, ET AL., defendants-appellees.
July 26, 1909

FACTS:
La Compañía General de Tabacos de Filipinas, Uy-Golan, and Yap-Anching (defendants-appellees) obtained a judgment for a sum of money against Sabino Balderrama. On December 8, 1903, the sheriff levied upon a two-wheeled cart and a carabao under an execution issued in that case.

On December 19, 1903, Catalino Balderrama (plaintiff-appellant) demanded possession of the property from the sheriff, alleging under oath that the property belonged to him. After this demand, the defendants-appellees executed and delivered a bond to the sheriff, as provided in Section 451 of the Code of Procedure in Civil Actions, allowing the sheriff to retain possession of the property.

On December 31, 1903, Catalino Balderrama filed an action against the defendants and the sheriff, asserting ownership of the cart and carabao and praying for their return and payment of costs. The defendants demurred to the complaint, arguing it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The lower court sustained the demurrer and dismissed the complaint, without allowing the plaintiff to amend it. Catalino Balderrama appealed this decision.

ISSUE:
Did the lower court err in sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the complaint on the ground that the facts alleged therein were insufficient to constitute a cause of action?

RULING:
Yes, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision.

The Court held that the facts alleged in the complaint were sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The complaint essentially stated that the sheriff, under an execution against a third party (Sabino Balderrama), had levied upon and taken possession of property belonging to the plaintiff (Catalino Balderrama), and was still retaining possession, denying the plaintiff’s right to it. The Court reasoned that if these facts were true, the plaintiff was surely entitled to recover the property.

Therefore, the allegations were sufficient, and the plaintiff should be given the opportunity to prove them. The case was remanded to the lower court with instructions for the defendants to be given five days to answer the complaint. The lower court also erred in not granting the plaintiff the right to amend his complaint, although the Court found the original complaint sufficient.