Case Digest (G.R. No. 31338)
Facts:
Cecilia Ortiz et al. sued Alejandro Balgos in the Court of First Instance of Capiz to recover based on contracts of lease involving a tract of land in Panay, Capiz. The plaintiffs leased the land on January 20, 1922 to Fortunato Tinsay, who subleased it on September 7, 1922 to Balgos, who then executed a notarial document assuming Tinsay’s obligations; in 1926, the plaintiffs filed the action against Balgos, and the case proceeded after Balgos’s demurrer was overruled.At trial, after plaintiffs’ counsel announced that evidence had been presented, Balgos moved to dismiss on the ground that Fortunato Tinsay was a necessary party defendant; the motion was denied, and upon reconvening Balgos sought to present evidence. The trial judge refused to allow him to submit evidence, relying on Demeterio vs. Lopez and Moody, Aronson & Co. vs. Hotel Bilbao, and judgment was later rendered for the plaintiffs; a motion for new trial was also denied.
Issues:
- Whether the trial judge erre
Case Digest (G.R. No. 31338)
Facts:
- Parties and properties involved
- Plaintiffs and appellees Cecilia Ortiz et al. were the owners of a considerable tract of land situated in the municipality of Panay, Province of Capiz.
- Defendant and appellant Alejandro Balgos was the person sued by the plaintiffs based on lease-related contracts.
- Lease and sublease transactions
- On January 20, 1922, the representative of the plaintiffs leased the land to Fortunato Tinsay.
- On September 7, 1922, Fortunato Tinsay subleased the property to Alejandro Balgos.
- On or about the same date, in a notarial document, Balgos made himself responsible for the obligations contracted by Tinsay.
- Filing of the plaintiffs’ action and the demurrer
- In 1926, the plaintiffs instituted the present action against Alejandro Balgos based on the contracts of lease involving the plaintiffs’ property.
- Balgos interposed a demurrer to the complaint on three grounds, including an alleged defect of parties defendant.
- The trial court overruled the demurrer.
- Defendant’s answer and repeated motion regarding missing party
- After the demurrer was overruled, Balgos filed an answer reiterating, as a special defense, the failure of the complaint to include Fortunato Tinsay as a necessary defendant.
- The case was called for trial and proceeded until plaintiffs’ counsel announced that he had closed the presentation of his evidence.
- Immediately after the plaintiffs rested, defense counsel asked for dismissal on the ground of obstinacy of the plaintiffs in omitting a very necessary party.
- The trial judge denied the motion for dismissal.
- Attempt to present defense evidence and trial judge’s prohibition
- After a recess, when the court reconvened, defense counsel announced readiness to present evidence.
- Plaintiffs’ counsel opposed the presentation of defense evidence, citing two decisions of this court.
- The trial judge decided that the defense had no right to submit evidence.
- A motion for reconsideration was likewise denied...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether the trial court committed reversible error by not allowing the defendant to present his evidence after the plaintiffs rested.
- Whether the trial judge correctly applied the doctrines in Demeterio vs. Lopez and Moody, Aronson & Co. vs. Hotel Bilbao to the procedural posture of the case.
- Whether the defendant’s repeated complaint about non-joinder of Fortunato Tin...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)