Facts
Celestina Gumabay (Plaintiff-Appellee), who was allowed to sue as a pauper litigant, filed a complaint on March 3, 1960, against Juliana Baralin, et al. (Defendants-Appellants) to recover possession of a 17,000 sq. meter cornland in Cagayan. The original complaint alleged forcible entry committed on August 5, 1959, when the defendants allegedly entered the land and forcibly harvested corn. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the Court of First Instance (CFI) lacked jurisdiction over a forcible entry suit filed within one year. Before the motion to dismiss was resolved, Gumabay filed an amended complaint wherein she alleged that the defendants claimed ownership of the land, thus transforming the action into one to quiet title and settle the question of ownership. The CFI admitted the amended complaint and denied the motion to dismiss. The defendants failed to answer the amended complaint, were declared in default, and judgment was rendered against them, declaring Gumabay the owner. The CFI subsequently denied the defendants’ Petition for Relief from Judgment, which they attributed to the mistake and neglect of their two lawyers. The case reached the Supreme Court (SC) on purely legal issues.
Issues
- Did the trial court err in admitting the amended complaint, thereby retaining jurisdiction, even though the original action was for forcible entry?
- Was the trial court required to issue new summons for the amended complaint after it had already acquired jurisdiction over the persons of the defendants based on the original complaint and their appearance?
- Did the trial court err in denying the defendants relief from the judgment by default?
Ruling
WHEREFORE, the lower court’s judgment is affirmed with costs against the defendants-appellants. SO ORDERED.
Essential Elements of Jurisprudence
The Supreme Court established the following controlling doctrines and legal principles:
- Amendment to Settle Real Dispute (Rule 1): An amendment transforming an action for forcible entry into an action to quiet title (or recover ownership) is proper when the original complaint already contained a basic prayer for declaration of ownership, and the amendment serves to settle the “real matter in dispute”. This action aligns with the object of the Rules of Court, which is “to assist the parties in obtaining just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding” (Sec. 2, Rule 1). To dismiss the original complaint and require a new action would result in a “circuitous, dilatory and expensive proceeding,” which should be avoided, especially for a pauper litigant.
- No New Summons Required After Jurisdiction Acquired: Once the trial court has acquired jurisdiction over the persons of the defendants through the original summons and their appearance (e.g., filing a motion to dismiss), new summons need not be served upon the filing of an amended complaint. Ordinary service of the amended pleading (personally or by mail) is sufficient. Requiring new summons in this scenario is deemed a “supererogation or making a fetish of a technicality”.
- Relief from Default Judgment: A petition for relief from a default judgment must be denied if the failure to answer was inexcusable (e.g., mistake and neglect of their two lawyers) and the proposed answer does not contain any meritorious defense. Granting a new trial when there is no probability of reversing the default judgment would be considered an “idle ceremony”.
Sample Q&A
Question: A filed a complaint for forcible entry against B, C, and D in the Court of First Instance (CFI), which B, C, and D moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (citing Sec. 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court and Secs. 44 & 88 of the Judiciary Law, which typically vest jurisdiction over possessory actions within one year in the inferior court). Before the motion was resolved, A amended the complaint to one for recovery of ownership/quieting of title, alleging B, C, and D claimed ownership, too. The CFI admitted the amendment and denied the motion to dismiss. B, C, and D, arguing that the amendment changed the nature of the suit and that they were not served with new summons, refused to answer and were subsequently declared in default. Was the CFI correct in (1) admitting the amendment to retain jurisdiction and (2) proceeding to judgment without issuing new summons?
Answer: Yes, the CFI was correct on both counts.
(1) Admitting the Amendment and Retaining Jurisdiction: The CFI properly admitted the amendment. If the original complaint, though denominated as forcible entry, contains the basic prayer to be declared the absolute owner, the subsequent amendment transforming the action to one to quiet title or recover ownership is valid. This is in consonance with the objective of the Rules of Court (Sec. 2, Rule 1) to secure a “just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action,” and to determine the “real matter in dispute” (ownership) in a single proceeding, thereby avoiding multiplicity of suits.
(2) Proceeding without New Summons: The CFI correctly proceeded to judgment. New summons is not required because the court had already acquired jurisdiction over the persons of B, C, and D when they were served with the original summons and subsequently filed a motion to dismiss. Once jurisdiction over the person is acquired, the service of the amended complaint upon the defendants or their counsel is sufficient. Requiring new summons in such a scenario is an unwarranted technicality.
AmendmentOfPleadings #SubstantialJustice #GumabayVsBaralin #CivilProcedure #DefaultJudgment #Jurisdiction #QuietingOfTitle #ReliefFromJudgment #RulesOfCourt #PauperLitigant #PhilippineLaw #RemedialLaw #SupremeCourtPH #CaseDigestPH #JurisprudencePH #LawStudentPH #BarExamsPH #FilipinoLawyer #LegalEducationPH #IBP #LegalInsights #KnowYourRightsPH #LawPH #JusticeForAll #CourtProcedure #LegalTips #PropertyDispute #LawyerLife #LegalPH #Philippines
Leave a Reply