Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-13414 February 4, 1919

JUAN GARCIA Y PALICIO, plaintiff-appelle,

vs.

JOSEFA DE MANZANO, as administratrix of the estate of her husband Narciso Lopez Manzano,
defendant-appellant.

Godofredo Reyes for appellants.

Eduardo Gutierrez Repide and Felix Socias for appellee.

MOIR, J.:

In order to understand this case, a brief explanation of the facts is considered necessary.

Narciso Lopez Manzano was a merchant in Atimonan, Tayabas, who went to Spain in May, 1910, and died
there the 8th of September, 1913. He gave a general power-of-attorney to his son, Angel L. Manzano on
the 9th of February, 1910, and on the 25th of March a second general power-of-attorney to his wife,
Josefa Samson.

Narciso L. Manzano had various commercial dealings before leaving for Spain.

Manzano was the owner of a half interest in a small steamer, the San Nicolas, the other half being
owned by Ocejo, Perez & Co., with whom there was a partnership agreement to run the steamer for a
few years. When this period expired Ocejo, Perez & Co., refused to continue the contact and demanded
that Manzano buy or sell. As he did not want to sell at the price offered and could not buy, Juan Garcia
bought the half interest held by Ocejo, Perez & Co., on the 15th of October, 1910. Angel L. Manzano,
acting under his power-of-attorney, sold in July, 1911, the other half of the boat to the plaintiff, but as
Garcia is a Spaniard and could not register the boat in his name at the Custom House, the boat was
registered in the name of Agustin Garcia, a son of the plaintiff, who at that time, July 2d, 1913, was a
minor about twenty years old. Agustin Garcia shortly thereafter died, leaving his parents as his heirs at
law, and as such heirs plaintiff's wife was made a party.

On the 23rd of July, 1912, Angel L. Manzano, by virtue of the power-of-attorney from his father, Narciso
L. Manzano, executed a contract, Exhibit A, made a part of the complaint, by which Juan Garcia agreed to
extend a credit to Narciso L. Manzano in the sum of P12,000, and this credit was used by the house of
Manzano. To secure it a mortgage was given in the same document on three parcels of land in Atimonan,
with their improvements. The registration of this mortgage was refused by the registrar.

The court of First Instance of Tayabas, on the 18th of April, 1914, named Josefa Samson y San Pedro,
administratrix of the property of Narciso L. Manzano, and commissioners were duly appointed, and
notice was published, and no claims having been presented against the estate to the commissioners,
they so reported to the court on the 7th of December, 1914.

On the 29th of July, 1915, the Court of First Instance ordered the partition of the property amongst the
heirs of Narciso L. Manzano.

On the 15th day of May, 1915, the plaintiff filed his action in the Court of First Instance of Tayabas to
foreclose the so-called mortgage in Exhibit a. Josefa de Manzano filed a pleading stating that the estate
had already been divided; that the property mentioned in Exhibit A of the plaintiff had been assigned, A
and B, to her and her children and C entirely to her; that her son Angel had ceded his share to her; that
all the other children were minors and suggesting that she be made guardian ad litem for the minors. In
a second motion filed the 25th of August, 1915, the defendant's attorney states the amended complaint
had not been presented as stipulated in open court and prays the court that instead of the administratrix
the heirs of Narciso L. Manzano be considered defendants and the names of the heirs including Josefa de
Manzano are given.

Plaintiff filed his amended complaint on the 24th of August, making them individually defendants, the
minors to be represented by their guardian ad litem, and asking for a judgment against each and all of
them for P14,087.59, being the amount then due on the open account and for P2,700 as attorney's fees,
all secured by the so-called mortgage; and that in case the judgment was not paid, that the mortgaged
property be sold to pay the debt.

The defendants, "Josefa de Manzano y otros," filed an answer on September 4, 1915, stating they knew
such a mortgage document set up in the complaint existed, but as they were not certain that Exhibit A
was an exact copy, they denied the document; they denied its efficacy and legal effect; they denied the
jurisdiction of the court to hear and decide the case, and alleged that the action had prescribed.

They alleged no facts in their answer.

The defendants also filed a counter-claim against Juan Garcia and his wife, Conception Castro, in which
they allege that Narciso L. Manzano was the owner of one-half of the small steamer San Nicolas and
Juan Garcia the owner of the half; that Garcia taking advantage of the youth and inexperience of Angel L.
Manzano falsely and maliciously made him believe that he had authority under the power-of-attorney
from his father to sell the half interest in the San Nicolas, and that he did so. That Angel L. Manzano had
no authority to sell the interest in the steamer, but that since the date of said sale, July, 1912, (1911?)
the plaintiff had illegally appropriated all rents and profits of the boat to his own use, which amount to
P30,000 per year, after paying for all repairs, etc., and they ask the court to absolve them from the
complaint, to declare them the owners of one-half of the steamer San Nicolas, and to order the plaintiffs
to render a detailed account of all the profits received from the San Nicolas, and to order one-half of the
profits paid to the defendants.

There are other immaterial questions presented by the counterclaim.

The trial court held there was not legal mortgage and gave judgment for the plaintiff against Josefa
Samson only, for the amount admitted by her letter to be due, i.e., P12,752.85, and dismissed the claim
against the other defendants and also dismissed the counterclaim of defendants. The plaintiffs did not
appeal. All of the defendants presented a motion for a new trial, but only the defendant Josefa de
Manzano excepted to the order of the court denying the motion for new trial, and she sets up the
following assignments of error in the decision giving judgment against her individually. (The alleged
errors of the trial court regarding the counterclaim are set out later.)

1. The court exceeded its jurisdiction in deciding a question and granting a relief not comprised within
the pleadings and contentions of the parties.

2. The trial court acted without jurisdiction on judging and holding that there was a novation of the debt.

3. The trial court erred in an essential mater in holding that there was a novation of the debt.
The argument presented in support of the first error assigned is that the action was against the
administratrix of the estate and not against the heirs individually. What are the facts? The original action
was presented against Josefa de Manzano as administratrix of her deceased husband, Narciso L.
Manzano, on May 15, 1915. The defendant's attorneys on the 6th of August filed a pleading stating that
the estate had been distributed by the court on the 27th of July, and giving the names of the heirs and
stating that some are minors for whom the mother "is the guardian" and agreeing that she be named
guardian ad litem for the minors which was done by the court's order dated the 4th of September, and
she took the oath prescribed by law for such guardian.

On the 25th of August the same attorneys filed another pleading saying the time stipulated by the
parties in open court for filing an amended complaint had passed, that the complaint had not been
presented and "Wherefore they respectfully request the Honorable Court that, in place of the
defendant-administratrix, the heirs of the late Narciso L. Manzano, whose names are Josefa Samson de
Manzano, widow, Paz Manzano, Matilde Manzano, Soledad Manzano, Carmelo Manzano, Narciso
Manzano, and Jose Manzano, be considered defendants in this case," — The first two of legal age and
the others minors, and they pray that Josefa Samson be named guardian ad litem for the minors, which
the court did. The plaintiff's amended complaint making all the above heirs and Angel L. Manzano
defendants by name had been filed in the clerk's office the day before but it is assumed the defendants
were not then aware of the fact.

The defendants filed their answer on September 4th 1915, which is headed "Josefa de Manzano y Otros,
demandados." The court's judgment is against them individually.

It is difficult to conceive what more defendants could want in order to make them individually
defendants, or what effect they intended their pleadings to have if they were not to be considered as
defendants. The only thing that might be considered as lacking is an order of the court admitting the
amended complaint, but his admission was supplied by the facts of defendants themselves. All the
parties were before the court individually and the court could only give judgment against them
individually if they were obligated individually.

When the whole record shows that the trial proceeded on the theory set up in an amended complaint
this court will not inquire as to whether the court actually entered an order admitting the amended
complaint. There is no error in this part of the decision.

The other two errors assigned will be considered together.

The nature of the action having been changed from one against the administratrix to one against the
heirs individually, the action against the other heirs was dismisse