GR L 4374; (January, 1909) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-4374
RUFINA ROCES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FRANCISCO JALANDONI and OSCAR BOGACKI, defendants-appellants.
January 26, 1909
FACTS:
Rufina Roces filed an action to recover possession of a house and lot against Francisco Jalandoni and Oscar Bogacki. Defendant Jalandoni admitted Roces’ rights, while defendant Bogacki filed a general denial. After trial, the lower court ruled in favor of Roces, ordering Bogacki to return the property to her and directing Jalandoni to pay Bogacki P120.
Bogacki appealed, assigning two errors: (1) the court erred in overruling his general demurrer which was filed after all proofs had been submitted; and (2) the court erred in finding that the complaint had been cured by the plaintiff’s testimony. The Supreme Court noted that it could not examine the evidence due to the absence of a motion for a new trial in the lower court, thus it relied on the lower court’s finding that Bogacki had interposed his demurrer after all evidence was presented, and that while the complaint was weak, its defects had been cured by the plaintiff’s declarations during trial, presented without opposition from Bogacki.
ISSUE:
Can a complaint, which initially lacks sufficient allegations, be cured by evidence presented during the trial without objection from the defendant, thereby rendering a subsequent general demurrer based on “failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action” inadmissible and ineffective?
RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision.
The Court held that while Section 93 of the Code of Procedure in Civil Actions allows an objection that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action to be raised even without demurrer or answer, a well-established rule dictates that if the defendant permits evidence to be introduced without objection which supplies the necessary allegations of a defective complaint, then this evidence cures the defects. Consequently, a demurrer presented thereafter, on the ground of insufficient facts, becomes inadmissible.
The Court accepted the lower court’s finding that whatever defects existed in the plaintiff’s complaint had been cured by the evidence adduced during the trial, which was admitted without opposition from the defendant. Therefore, the demurrer presented by Bogacki after the proof was admitted could not be effective. The Court emphasized that courts are required to render judgment consistent with both the pleadings and the evidence.