CHUA Esquivel Vs Alegre Supplemental Judgement MP: There Is A Difference Between An Amended Judgment and A Supplemental

16.
CHUA
ESQUIVEL VS ALEGRE
Supplemental judgement
MP: There is a difference between an amended judgment and a supplemental
judgment. In an amended and clarified judgment, the lower court makes a thorough
study of the original judgment and renders the amended and clarified judgment only
after considering all the factual and legal issues. The amended and clarified decision is
an entirely new decision which supersedes the original decision. Following the Court’s
differentiation of a supplemental pleading from an amending pleading, it can be said
that a supplemental decision does not take the place or extinguish the existence of the
original. As its very name denotes, it only serves to bolster or adds something to the
primary decision. A supplement exists side by side with the original. It does not replace
that which it supplements
FACTS: In the action of ejectment, petitioners secured a judgment ordering
respondents to vacate a parcel of land. Respondents claimed prior and continued
possession of the land in question, and with respect to Original Certificate of Title No.
28 of the Register of Deeds of Legaspi City on which petitioners based their action,
respondents alleged that the same was secured through fraud.
Respondents’ attempt to have the case appealed to the SC did not prosper, and
so, the ejectment decision became final and executory.
Before the decision could be executed, Petitioners, the spouses Cresenciana
Atun and Lamberto Esquivel filed against respondents Teotimo Alaurin and Visitacion
Magno and the City Sheriff, Civil Case No. 4883 on August 24, 1973 for reconveyance
with nullity of judgment, damages and preliminary injunction, injunction, before the CFI.
The CFI dismiss civil case no. 4883, petitioners filed a notice of appeal. They
were directed to amend their record on appeal in an order dated April 14, 1978 but
before they filed their amended record on appeal, on May 10, 1978 petitioners filed a
motion for permission to serve supplemental complaint in pleading the spouses Wilfredo
Encinas and Patrocinia Dasmarinas, the two other private respondents herein.
The supplemental complaint was admitted by the court a quo in its order dated
January 12, 1979 and on motion of respondents herein in that supplemental complaint,
supplemental defendants were declared in default.
The court n quo rendered a decision on the supplemental complaint declaring the
supplemental defendants as successors-in-interest of herein private respondents
Teotimo Alaurin and Visitacion Magno, such that whatever is the result of the appealed
case shall be legally binding them.
Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari praying that the decision against
supplemental defendant spouses Wilfredo Encinas and Patrocinia Dasmarinas be
declared null and void. Petitioners claim that the decision of respondent court in the
supplemental complaint revised the decision in the original complaint tantamount to an
amendment or reversal of said original decision of respondent court penned by a
previous presiding judge therein.
ISSUE: whether or not the decision rendered by a trial court in supplemental complaint
modified the decision of the same branch of the court in the original complaint and
amounts to an amendment of the original decision.
RULING: NO, In the instant case no restudy was made by respondent court of the
original decision but only on the issues raised in the supplemental complaint. The
supplemental decision cannot stand alone as a judgment on the merits as there was no
declaration of the respective rights and duties of the parties. It only declared the
supplemental defendants as successors-in-interest of the defendants in the original
complaint, "such that whatever is the result of the appealed case shall be legally binding
upon them .
There can be no other interpretation of the above statement of respondent court
than that all documentary and testimonial evidence prescribed by supplemental
plaintiffs, petitioners herein, sufficiently prove that when supplemental defendants
entered into the contract of absolute sale with the original defendants, they already had
full knowledge of the controversy between supplemental plaintiffs and the original
defendants in Civil Case No. 4883 such that they must be adjudged as successors-in-
interest of original defendants Teotimo Alaurin and Visitacion Magno. This interpretation
is borne by the statement of respondent court at the end of the paragraph preceding
that which petitioners herein claim to have revised the original decision, which states:
". . . One thing, however, clear is that both supplemental defendants are successors-in-
interest of Teotimo Alaurin. The prayer for reconveyance of the property in question
cannot be justified in the light of the decision of Hon. Jose C. Razo."

CHUA Esquivel Vs Alegre Supplemental Judgement MP: There Is A Difference Between An Amended Judgment and A Supplemental

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHUA Esquivel Vs Alegre Supplemental Judgement MP: There Is A Difference Between An Amended Judgment and A Supplemental

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHUA Esquivel Vs Alegre Supplemental Judgement MP: There Is A Difference Between An Amended Judgment and A Supplemental

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

16.

You might also like