GR L 4241; (March, 1908) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-4241
AGUSTIN G. GAVIERES, plaintiff-appellant, vs. THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF LUISA, PEÑA, AND WILLIAM ROBINSON, defendants-appellees.
March 20, 1908
FACTS:
Agustin G. Gavieres (plaintiff-appellant) married Luisa Peña in November 1874. Luisa Peña died on December 31, 1906. Two days prior to her death, on December 29, 1906, Luisa Peña executed a mortgage in favor of William Robinson (defendant-appellee). Gavieres subsequently filed a complaint seeking to declare this mortgage void. He alleged that he was unaware of, did not consent to, and did not authorize the execution of the mortgage, and that his wife was induced through deceit to sign the contract, which brought no profit or benefit to him or their home.
The trial court sustained a demurrer to the complaint and dismissed the case. The trial court’s rationale was that, based on its examination of the demurrer and complaint, it found Gavieres to be the husband of Luisa Peña and “one of the judicial administrators of her estate.” Under these circumstances, the lower court concluded that Gavieres “cannot bring an action against himself for the purpose of declaring a contract made by his wife during her lifetime void.” Gavieres appealed this decision.
ISSUE:
Did the trial court err in sustaining the demurrer based on a finding of fact (that the plaintiff was an administrator of the estate) not alleged in the complaint?
RULING:
Yes, the trial court erred. The Supreme Court cited Section 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which defines a demurrer as an allegation that, admitting the facts of the preceding pleading to be true, no cause of action has been shown. The Court found that there was “not a single fact alleged showing that the plaintiff is one of the administrators of the estate of Luisa Peña” within the complaint itself.
Therefore, the trial court’s basis for sustaining the demurrer, which relied on a fact not pleaded in the complaint, was incorrect. The Supreme Court held that the demurrer does not lie under such circumstances.
The Court reversed the order sustaining the demurrer and the subsequent judgment of dismissal. The case was remanded to the court below to proceed with the trial, granting a term for the defendants to file an answer.