Facts:

The case of Nicasio Veloso vs. Ang Seng Teng was initiated on November 5, 1902, in the Justice of the Peace Court of Manila, where the plaintiff, Nicasio Veloso, sought to recover possession of a real estate property from the defendant, Ang Seng Teng. This action was brought under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The background of the case reveals that on February 8, 1902, Veloso had previously filed a similar action against Teng for the same property, but the justice rendered a judgment against Veloso on April 19, 1902. Veloso appealed this judgment, and while the case was pending in the Court of First Instance, he requested a dismissal of the action on June 19, 1902, which was granted without prejudice, allowing him to file a new action for the same cause. The lower court ruled that this prior dismissal did not bar the current suit.

The defendant, Teng, raised several assignments of error, including a plea of former adjudication based on the previous case, an...

Facts:

1. Initial Action and Dismissal:

   • On February 8, 1902, Nicasio Veloso (plaintiff) filed an action against Ang Seng Teng (defendant) before a justice of the peace in Manila to recover possession of real estate.
   • On April 19, 1902, the justice of the peace ruled against Veloso. Veloso appealed to the Court of First Instance.
   • On June 19, 1902, the Court of First Instance dismissed the case at Veloso's request, without prejudice to his right to refile the action.

2. Second Action and Trial:

   • Veloso refiled the case on November 5, 1902, under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
   • The Court of First Instance ruled against Ang Seng Teng, who appealed to the Supreme Court.

3. Defendant's Claims:

   • Ang Seng Teng raised several defenses, including:
     • A plea of former adjudication, arguing the first case barred the second.
     • Objections to the amendment of the complaint.
     • A motion for continuance, which was denied.
     • Disputes over the language of the trial and the signing of findings by the judge.
     • Challenges to the findings of damages and rent.

4. Evidence on Damages:

   • The court found that Ang Seng Teng had caused $4,000 in damages to the property during his occupation.
   • However, the Supreme Court noted there was no evidence to prove the damages occurred after January 9, 1902, the date the possession became unlawful.

5. Forgery Allegation:

   • The lower court found a document presented by the defendant to be a forgery, though it was never formally offered in evidence.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Former Adjudication:

   • A dismissal without prejudice allows a plaintiff to refile the same action. The court's jurisdiction and power to make such an order cannot be attacked collaterally.

2. Continuance and Discretion:

   • Courts have broad discretion in granting or denying continuances, and such rulings are not subject to exception unless there is a clear abuse of discretion.

3. Damages in Summary Actions:

   • In summary actions for forcible entry and detainer, damages recoverable are limited to those arising from the loss of use and occupation of the property. Substantial damages to the property must be pursued in an ordinary civil action.

4. Judicial Findings and Evidence:

   • Findings of fact must be supported by competent evidence. Unsupported findings, such as the $4,000 damages award, will be reversed.

5. Forgery and Prejudice:

   • Even if a court errs in making a finding on a matter not formally in evidence, such an error is harmless if it does not affect the outcome of the case.