Facts:

The case of Josefa Marcelo vs. Feliciano (alias Felix Bermudez) and Benito Alcantara revolves around a legal dispute concerning property rights. Josefa Marcelo, the plaintiff and appellant, filed a complaint against Feliciano and Benito Alcantara in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan. The events leading to the case began when the court sustained a demurrer filed by the defendants on January 7, 1935, which argued that the facts presented in Marcelo's complaint did not establish a valid cause of action. The court noted that Marcelo had not acquired any title or right over the property in question, which was registered under the name of her husband, Feliciano. The court further stated that if Feliciano had executed deeds under deceit due to his mental incapacity, the appropriate legal action would be to appoint a guardian for him and file a complaint on his behalf to annul the fraudulent deeds. Following this ruling, Marcelo was notified on January 17, 1935, but faile...

Facts:

1. Parties Involved:

   • Plaintiff and Appellant: Josefa Marcelo
   • Defendants and Appellees: Feliciano (alias Felix Bermudez) and Benito Alcantara

2. Procedural Background:

   • Josefa Marcelo filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan.
   • The defendants filed a demurrer to the complaint, arguing that the facts alleged did not constitute a cause of action.
   • The court sustained the demurrer on January 7, 1935, and ordered the plaintiff to amend her complaint within five days.

3. Allegations in the Complaint:

   • The plaintiff claimed that the parcels of land described in the complaint were registered in the name of the defendant Feliciano (her husband).
   • She alleged that Feliciano, who was mentally incapacitated, executed fraudulent deeds of conveyance with the help of his co-defendant, Benito Alcantara.

4. Court's Initial Ruling:

   • The court held that the plaintiff had not acquired any title or right over the property in question.
   • It suggested that the proper action would be the appointment of a guardian for Feliciano and the filing of a complaint in the name of the ward to annul the fraudulent deeds.

5. Plaintiff's Failure to Amend:

   • The plaintiff was notified of the court's order on January 17, 1935.
   • She did not amend her complaint within the prescribed five-day period, nor did she request an extension.
   • On January 30, 1935, she filed an exception and motion for a new trial, which was denied.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Compliance with Procedural Rules:

   • Rule 14 of the Rules of Courts of First Instance requires a party to amend their pleading within five days after a demurrer is sustained. Failure to do so results in a waiver of the right to amend.

2. Proper Remedy for Fraudulent Conveyances:

   • If a party alleges that a mentally incapacitated person executed fraudulent deeds, the proper remedy is to appoint a guardian for the incapacitated person and file a complaint in the name of the ward to annul the fraudulent transactions.

3. No Right to New Trial:

   • The plaintiff's motion for a new trial was not valid because she failed to amend her complaint within the prescribed period. The court emphasized that procedural rules must be strictly followed, and failure to comply results in the dismissal of the action.