G.R. No. L-6733 / March 28, 1912
VICTORIANO LAZO Y SINGSON, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MARIANO N. LAZO ET AL., defendants-appellants.

FACTS

Plaintiff Victoriano Lazo y Singson filed a complaint for the recovery of a parcel of land. The defendants interposed a demurrer (a motion to dismiss) to the complaint, one ground of which was the pendency of another action between the same parties over the same land in the Court of Land Registration. The trial court overruled the demurrer, stating that the grounds were insufficient, and later decided the case in favor of the plaintiff. On appeal, the defendants assigned as error the trial court’s overruling of their demurrer.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in overruling the demurrer based on the ground of lis pendens (pendency of another action) when such fact did not appear on the face of the complaint.

RULING

No, the trial court did not err in overruling the demurrer on that specific ground. Under Section 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a demurrer can only raise questions of law based on the facts alleged in the complaint. Since the complaint did not allege or refer to the existence of the pending land registration case, the ground of lis pendens could not be properly raised by demurrer. The proper remedy, as provided in Section 92, was to raise the objection by answer. However, the Supreme Court, in the interest of justice and to avoid multiplicity of suits, set aside the appealed judgment. The case was remanded to the trial court with instructions to restore it to the status of answer to the complaint, allowing the defense of lis pendens to be properly raised and the case to be tried on its merits. Costs were not awarded.