Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 46 views

    Adolfo Gaspar vs. Leopoldo Dorado

    Uploaded by

    Stephanie Gaile Bermudez
    The document summarizes a court case regarding a dispute over land ownership between Adolfo Gaspar and Leopoldo Dorado. The plaintiff Gaspar claimed ownership of the land through a prior sale and registration, while the defendant Dorado argued the sale was fraudulent. The lower courts allowed Gaspar to amend his complaint from seeking damages to annulment of the sale to Dorado. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding the lower court had jurisdiction over the original complaint as it involved determining the validity of the prior sale, and the amendment was merely a matter of form rather than substance.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Adolfo Gaspar vs. Leopoldo Dorado

    Uploaded by

    Stephanie Gaile Bermudez
    46 views2 pages
    The document summarizes a court case regarding a dispute over land ownership between Adolfo Gaspar and Leopoldo Dorado. The plaintiff Gaspar claimed ownership of the land through a prior sale and registration, while the defendant Dorado argued the sale was fraudulent. The lower courts allowed Gaspar to amend his complaint from seeking damages to annulment of the sale to Dorado. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding the lower court had jurisdiction over the original complaint as it involved determining the validity of the prior sale, and the amendment was merely a matter of form rather than substance.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document summarizes a court case regarding a dispute over land ownership between Adolfo Gaspar and Leopoldo Dorado. The plaintiff Gaspar claimed ownership of the land through a prior sale and registration, while the defendant Dorado argued the sale was fraudulent. The lower courts allowed Gaspar to amend his complaint from seeking damages to annulment of the sale to Dorado. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding the lower court had jurisdiction over the original complaint as it involved determining the validity of the prior sale, and the amendment was merely a matter of form rather than substance.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    46 views2 pages

    Adolfo Gaspar vs. Leopoldo Dorado

    Uploaded by

    Stephanie Gaile Bermudez
    The document summarizes a court case regarding a dispute over land ownership between Adolfo Gaspar and Leopoldo Dorado. The plaintiff Gaspar claimed ownership of the land through a prior sale and registration, while the defendant Dorado argued the sale was fraudulent. The lower courts allowed Gaspar to amend his complaint from seeking damages to annulment of the sale to Dorado. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding the lower court had jurisdiction over the original complaint as it involved determining the validity of the prior sale, and the amendment was merely a matter of form rather than substance.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    BERMUDEZ, STEPHANIE GAILE S.

    G.R No. L-17884 NOVEMBER 29,1965


    ADOLFO GASPAR, Plaintiff- appellee
    vs.
    LEOPOLDO DORADO, in his capacity as Provincial Sheriff Ex-officio, C.N. HODGES, and VISAYAN
    SURETY & INSURANCE COMPANY, defendants,
    C.N. HODGES and VISAYA SURETY & INSURANCE, CORPORATION, defendants-appellants.

    FACTS:
    1. Petitioner’s/Plaintiff’s claims
    Plaintiff claimed that he had acquired ownership of the land I question through a prior
    sale to him and its registration in the Capiz land registry, and that when a judgment was
    rendered in favor of Hodges and against Alamodin by the Municipal Court of Iloilo City,
    the latter was no longer the owner. Having thus claimed exclusive ownership, plaintiff
    merely prayed for damages in his original complaint, to wit: P100.00 for expenses:P300.00
    for attorney’s fees, and P1,000.00 as moral damages.

    2. Respondent’s/Defendant’s claims
    Defendants-appellants argue that the Court of First Instance of Capiz did not acquire
    jurisdiction over the case under the allegation of the original complaint because the cause
    of action therein was for recovery of damages in the aggregate sum of less than P2,000.00
    and therefore was not cognizable by said Court but by the corresponding Justice of the
    Peace Court or Municipal Court; and that lacking jurisdiction in the first place the Court
    of First Instance erred “ in allowing another complaint which prays for the annulment of
    the sale”. Furthermore, they seek to have said prior sale set aside on the ground that it
    was execute in fraud of Hodges, upon the presumption set forth in Article 1387 of the
    Civil Code

    3. Decisions of the lower courts


    Courts of Appeals- After the defendants filed their answer, but before trial was
    announced, the plaintiff was permitted by CFI to file an amended complaint wherein he
    expressly prayed for annulment of the sale in favor of C.N. Hodges. The CFI did not award
    damages but declared the prior sale to Gaspar as valid and the one executed by the Sheriff
    in favor of Hodges as null and void.
    ISSUE:
    4. Issue/s:
    Whether or not should the amendment of the original complaint into an annulment of
    sale is taken cognizance by the same court.

    HELD:
    5. Disposition of the case
    The judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs.

    6. Dictum
    There is authority for the proposition that when it appears from the very face of the
    complaint that the Court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case,
    amendment of the complaint could not be allowed so as to confer jurisdiction over the
    case in order to act validly therein. Rosario vs. Carandang, 96 Phil. 845. Explaining the
    principle in another way, this court has ruled that whenever possible the amendment of
    a defective pleading should be allowed, but that “ when it is evident that the court has no
    jurisdiction over the person and the subject matter, that the pleading is so fatally
    defective as not to be susceptible of amendment, or that to permit such amendment
    would radically alter the theory and the nature of action, then the court may refuse the
    amendment of the defective pleading and order the dismissal of the case”. Praxedes
    Alvarez vs. The Comm. of the Phil., 65 Phil. 302. Applying this test I the instant case we
    find that in his original complaint plaintiff put in issue the validity of the sheriffs sale in
    favor of defendant Hodges and claimed exclusive and absolute ownership of the property
    in question by virtue of the prior sale in his favor and of its registration in the land registry
    of Capiz. The resolution of this question, on which plaintiff’s prayer for damages was
    predicated and without which no decision could be rendered, was within the jurisdiction
    of the Court of First Instance of Capiz. The amendment of the complaint, therefore, was
    merely a matter of form and not of substance, and the Court a quo committed no error
    in allowing it.

    You might also like