Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 6

G.R. No.

LORENZA QUISON, ET AL., plaintifs-appellees,
HIGINA SALUD, defendant-appellant.
V. Ilustre, for appellant.
Santiago D. Reyes, for appellees.
Upon the merits of this case the only question is one of fact, namely, is the
oundary line et!een the land formerly o!ned y "idel #alud, the father of
the defendant, and land o!ned y $laro %uison, father and uncle of the
plaintifs, the estero or River Na&saulay, or is it, as found y the court elo!,
a strai&ht line of man&o and amoo trees to the south of the aove-
mentioned estero' (he land in controversy is situated et!een this line of
trees and the estero.
(hat $laro %uison o!ned land to the north of the estero, is undisputed, ut
the defendant claims that he )%uison* never o!ned any land south of
the estero. + lar&e amount of evidence, principally parol, !as introduced
upon this question, and after an e,amination thereof, !e are satis-ed that it
clearly preponderates in favor of the decision of the court elo!, and that it
!as proven at the trial that the land in question elon&s to the heirs of
(he defendant relied to a &reat e,tent upon the record of an action rou&ht
y $laro %uison in 1../ a&ainst one 0erde&uera. %uison alle&ed in his
complaint in that action that the defendant therein had in unla!fully
possessed himself of a portion of his, the then plaintif1s land. (he land there
in question !as in the e,treme northern part of the land of %uison, and
therefore entirely north of theEstero Na&saulay. 2ud&ment !as rendered in
that action in favor of the plaintif, and the gobernadorcillo of the t!o of #an
2uan de 3ococ !as ordered to restore the plaintif to the possession of the
land detained y 0erde&uera. 4n e,ecutin& this 5ud&ment the o6cers of the
la! apparently &ave %uison possession of the land !hich he had descried
in his complaint in that action, !hich description !as as follo!s7 89n the
east, the sea: on the south, land of "idel #alud: on the !est, lands of 2uan de
$haves and $amilo 0ere;: and on the north !ith the arroyo called
+moyon&an.8 "idel #alud !as cited to appear, and did appear !hen
possession !as &iven to %uison. 4t !ill e noticed that, !hile the land of
%uison is descried as ein& ounded on the south y the property of #alud,
nothin& is said aout the Estero Na&saulay, nor does that estero appear
upon the plan !hich accompanied the complaint in that action an !hich the
o6cers had efore them !hen possession !as restored. (he minute of the
proceedin& concernin& the restitution !as si&ned y #alud.
(he importance of these documents for the defendant1s case lies in the fact
that in them the land descried as ein& in the arrio of #uuquin. <e thin=
the evidence estalishes that the land here in controversy is in the arrio of
3ataan, and that the dividin& line et!een the arrios of 3ataan and
#uuquin !as the River Na&saulay, 3ataan ein& to the south of the river
and #uuquin to the north, and the ar&ument of the defendant is that,
accordin& to these documents, the entire property o!ned y $laro %uison
!as situated in #uuquin, and therefore !as north of the Estero Na&saulay.
Even giving the document all the weight which the defendant claims it is entitled to, it would
then be merely evidence upon the question of fact as to whether Quison did or did not own lands
to the south of the River Nagsaulay, and as such evidence we think it can not overcome the
evidence of the many witnesses presented by the plaintiffs who swore that as a matter of fact,
they had occupied and cultivated lands belonging to Claro Quison situated to the south of this
river. t may be, perhaps, that, in view of the fact that the land in controversy in that action
commenced in !""# was a small parcel which itself was in the barrio of $ubuquin, in describing
the land in question the then plaintiff did not have in mind so much where all of his land lay as
where the particular tract then in controversy lay.
%he defendant also claims that &idel $alud was given 'udicial possession of the property here in
controversy in !"(). No written documents were presented to prove this possession, but
admitting that proceedings relating to 'udicial possession were then taken in accordance with the
provisions of title !* of the $panish +aw of Civil ,rocedure, such proceedings could in no way
pre'udice the plaintiffs according to the e-press provisions of article ./!0. %he law did not
require for such proceedings the citation of the ad'oining proprietors, nor was there any evidence
that they were in fact cited in this proceeding, and, according to the testimony of 1regorio de
2illa, any possession which &idel $alud obtained in !"() was lost in !(/!, when Quison again
took possession of the premises and held them until the reconcentration when the defendant, in
!(/*, by reason of such reconcentration again possessed herself of the property.
3e hold that the finding of the court below in favor of the plaintiffs as to the true boundary line
between the respective properties is sustained by the evidence.
$ome questions of procedure remain to be considered.
%his action was first brought against &idel $alud and 1regorio de 2illa, the father and husband,
respectively, of the defendant 4igina $alud. %hey answered, alleging that the property in
question had been conveyed to 4igina $alud in !"(), and that she was the only owner thereof.
5pon the presentation of this answer, the plaintiffs asked leave to present a supplementary
complaint against 4igina $alud. %he court, in disposing of that motion, ordered the dismissal of
the action so far as the defendant &idel $alud and 1regorio de 2illa were concerned, with costs
against the plaintiffs, and permitted the plaintiffs to present a complaint against 4igina $alud.
%he plaintiffs e-cepted to this order and insisted that the two defendants above6named should be
included in this case, but the court refused to vacate his order of dismissal. %he plaintiffs then
presented a complaint against 4igina $alud as the only defendant. $he made a motion that the
complaint be stricken out, but it does not appear that the court ever made any ruling thereon. $he
afterwards answered then complaint and the trial was had upon the pleadings then in the case,
namely, on the complaint against 4igina $alud and her answer.
>i&ina #alud !as the only one !ho appealed from the 5ud&ment and she
no! alle&es in her rief that the court erred in dismissin& the case as to the
other defendants. (his dismissal only pre5udiced the plaintifs and they have
not appealed. (he complaint a&ainst >i&ina #alud !as improperly called y
the plaintifs as supplementary complaint. 3ut the name &iven to it !as of
no importance. +t the time it !as presented she !as the only defendant. 4t
perhaps !as error to permit the -lin& of that ne! complaint a&ainst >i&ina
#alud in this action and perhaps the complaint should have constituted a
ne! case, ut the fact that it !as placed amon& the papers in this case and
that the trial and 5ud&ment !ere had and rendered therein, if it !ere error,
!as an error !hich in no !ay pre5udiced the sustantial ri&hts of the
defendant >i&ina #alud upon the merits, and is therefore no &round for
reversal. ?#ec. @A3, $ode of the $ivil 0rocedure.B
Claro Quison died in !(/.. t was proven at the trial that the present plaintiffs are the ne-t of kin
and heirs, but it is said by the appellant that they are not entitled to maintain this action because
there is no evidence that any proceedings have been taken in court for the settlement of the
estate of Claro Quison, and that, without such settlement, the heirs can not maintain this action.
%here is nothing in this point. 7s well by the Civil Code as by the Code of ,rocedure, the title to
property owned by a person who dies intestate passes at once to his heirs. $uch transmission is,
under the present law, sub'ect to the claims of the administration and the property may be taken
from the claims of the purpose of paying debts and e-penses, but this does not prevent the
immediate passage of the title, upon the death of the intestate, from himself to his heirs. 3ithout
some showing that a 'udicial administrator had been appointed in proceedings to settle the estate
of Claro Quison, the right of the plaintiffs to maintain this action is established.
%he court below gave the plaintiffs ,(// as damages. 3hile the defendant has assigned this part
of the 'udgment as error in her brief, it has not been argued therein. 3hile it is true that the
evidence relating to the damages is in some respects vague and uncertain, yet, after an
e-amination of all of it, we are satisfied that it supports the 'udgment of the court below, at least
to the e-tent of ,(//.
%he appellant finally claims that the action can not be maintained, because some of the plaintiffs
are married women whose husbands did not 'oin with them in the action. 7n e-amination of the
record shows that at least one of the plaintiffs, +oren8a Quison, was a married woman and that
her husband did not 'oin with her in the action. $ection !!) of the $ode of $ivil
0rocedure is as follows9
Married women as a party. : 3hen a married women is a party, her husband must be
'oined with her, e-cept9
!. 3hen the action concerns her property, in which her husband can have no interest or right;
.. 3hen the action is between herself and her husband;
*. 3hen, for 'ust cause, she is living separate and apart from her husband, or by reason of an
agreement in writing entered into between them.
n either of which cases she may sue or be sued alone.
%he action was brought not only to recover the possession of the land and to secure a declaration
that the plaintiffs were the owners thereof, but also to recover the sum of ,0,#./, damages
which the plaintiff have suffered by the wrongful occupation of the land by the defendant. %hese
damages consisted of the products of the land which the defendant had received during the time
of such occupation.
0assin& the question !hether, as to the land itself, it ein& the separate
property of the !ife, the husand of Coren;a %uison could have any interest
or ri&ht therein, !e thin= that it is very clear that as to the rents and pro-ts
of the land he does necessarily have such an interest or ri&ht. (he most that
can e said in favor of the plaintifs is that these lands !ere bienes
parafernales. 4n re&ard to the rents of such lands, articles 13.@ and 14A1 of
the $ivil $ode provides as follo!s7
7R%. !*"). %he fruits of the paraphernal property form a part of the assets of the con'ugal
partnership, and are liable for the payment of the marriage e-penses.
%he property itself also be liable, in the case of article !*0., provided that of the husband and
the dowry property should be insufficient to cover the liabilities referred to therein.
7R%. !</!. %o the con'ugal partnership belong9
!. ,roperty acquired for a valuable consideration during the marriage at the e-pense of the
partnership property, whether the acquisition is made for the partnership or for one of the
spouses only.
.. %hat obtained by the industry, salaries or work of the spouses or either of them.
*. %he fruits, income, or interest collected or accrued during the marriage, coming from the
partnership property, or from that which belongs to either one of the spouses.
3e hold, therefore, that the husband of +oren8a Quison was a necessary party to this action.
%he case was submitted for our decision on the .!st of =uly, !(/". 7n e-amination of the record
having disclosed the facts above stated, the court, on the ..d day of 7ugust, made an order
permitting the plaintiffs, on notice to the adverse party, to move the court for permission to
amend the complaint by adding thereto the names of the husbands of those plaintiffs who were
married. n accordance with such order, the plaintiffs made a motion that the complaint be
amended by adding thereto the names of the husbands of +oren8a Quison, >a-imina Quison,
Roberta Quison, and ,etra Quison, as plaintiffs. %his motion was argued on the )th day of
?ctober. ,laintiffs rely upon section !!/ of the $ode of $ivil 0rocedure, which is in part as
%he court shall, in furtherance of 'ustice, and on such terms, if any, as may be proper, allow a
party to amend any pleading or proceeding and at any stage of the action, in either the Court of
&irst nstance or the $upreme Court, by adding or striking out the name or any party, either
plaintiff or defendant, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistaken or
inadequate allegation or description in any other respect, so that the actual merits of the
controversy may speedily be determined, without regards to technicalities, and in the most
e-peditious and ine-pensive manner.
t will be seen that this case falls directly within the terms of this section. %he amendment
consisted in adding the names of certain parties as the plaintiffs. %hat amendment is e-pressly
allowed by the section. %he motion was made in the $upreme Court. %hat is also e-pressly
allowed by the section, and if it is ever to be given any effect as applied to the addition of a party
to an action, it must cover this case.
%he provision, moreover, seems to us a very wise one. f it were not allowed, the plaintiffs
would either fail entirely in the action or, the present suit would to have be dismissed and they
would be compelled to commence another action for the same cause, 'oining their husbands as
plaintiffs, which second action would be but a repetition of the first and would involve both
parties, plaintiffs and defendants, in much additional e-pense and would cause much delay, in
that way defeating the purpose of the section, which is e-pressly stated to be @that the actual
merits of the controversy may speedily be determined without regard to technicalities and in the
most e-peditious and ine-pensive manner.@
&or the reasons above stated, the court on the )th day of ?ctober, made an order stating that on
the payment by the plaintiffs of ,)/ for the benefit of the defendant, the motion would be
granted. %hese terms were imposed upon the plaintiffs for the reason that the attention of their
counsel was called to the defect several times in the Court of &irst nstance and in this court also
by the brief of the appellant and that, notwithstanding this fact, he took no steps to correct the
error. %he plaintiffs have paid into the clerkAs office the ,)/ mentioned in the resolution of
?ctober ), and it is therefore now ordered that the complaint in the action be amended by adding
thereto as plaintiffs the names of $antiago $evilla, husband of +oren8a Quison; $imeon 1uerra,
husband of >a-imina Quison; Bionisio Cravo, husband of Roberta Quison, and 2icente
7mador, husband of ,etra Quison.
%he 'udgment of the court below is affirmed, without costs to either party in the court. $o