Case Digest (G.R. No. L-5586)
Facts:
Casiana Bismorte v. Aldecoa & Co., G.R. No. 5586. December 10, 1910, the Supreme Court (Trent, J., writing for the Court; Arellano, C.J., Torres, Johnson, and Moreland, JJ., concurring).
The plaintiff-appellant, Casiana Bismorte, a married woman, sued Aldecoa & Co. (defendant-appellee) in her own name to recover possession of the steamer San Rafael and for damages for its alleged wrongful detention. The complaint did not disclose her coverture; the defendant raised coverture in its answer and pleaded, as a special defense, that the plaintiff lacked legal capacity to sue without joining her husband pursuant to section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The only documentary evidence before the Court was Exhibit A, a notarial instrument executed July 2, 1907, in which Manuel Veloso acted both in his own name and as the legal representative (by power of attorney) of his wife, Casiana Bismorte, and William Urquhart acted as agent and liquidator for Aldecoa & Co. Exhibit A recited earlier transactions (including sales dated August 19, 1905, and a prior acknowledgment dated August 3, 1904, by which Veloso had described the steamer as his own) and reflected a final liquidation leaving Veloso indebted to Aldecoa & Co. It converted earlier conditional sales of certain lands (some stated as belonging to Mrs. Bismorte) into absolute sales to Aldecoa & Co. to apply on Veloso’s indebtedness. Paragraph (e) of Exhibit A expressly excluded the steamer San Rafael from the assignment and declared it “the exclusive property of my wife, Casiana Bismorte.” Paragraph (f) required Mrs. Bismorte to execute a confirming notarial instrument within two months, otherwise Aldecoa & Co. could insist on the instrument’s validity or rescind it.
The trial court dismissed the complaint, holding that the plaintiff had no legal capacity to sue alone. The plaintiff appealed. While the appeal was pending this Court, upon motion, allowed the plaintiff to amend her complaint by striking the damages claim and limiting relief to recovery of the steamer. The record also showed that prior to the amendment the husband had an interest in the income from the steamer (the Court cited ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the plaintiff, a married woman, lack capacity to sue in her own name without joining her husband under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
- Is the defendant, Aldecoa & Co., estopped from denying that the steamer San Rafael is the exclusive property of the plaintiff where Exhibit A (a notarial contract) expressly so provided and the defendant accepted lands as the plaintiff’s consideration?
- Did the steamer San Rafael become the plaintiff’s paraphernal (exclusive) property by the transaction such that she may recover poss...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)