allowed, there is preponderant evidence

proving possession by defendant-appellee

since 1928. It had filed the application for
the conversion of the Disputed Portion into
a cemetery on February 20, 1928. Its
application was approved on May 17, 1928
* by the Bureau of Health. Since then, that
No. L-39379. April 30, 1985.
portion had remained part of a Chinese
cemetery. Its possession since 1928 was also
BONIFACIO GOTICO, plaintiff- recognized in the Reversion Case. All of
appellant, vs. LEYTE CHINESE which disprove plaintiff-appellant’s
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, allegations in his application for a Free
defendant-appellee. Patent.
Same; Same; Same; Admissions in the
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; pleadings; A party may be relieved of the
Amendments of cause of action; Denial of effects of admissions in the pleadings if the
motion to amend the complaint and the admissions were made through palpable
prayer therein by changing the year “1928” mistake; Admission by plaintiff of the year
to “1961” as the year possession vested to “1928” was not palpable mistake as the year
plaintiff over the land in question, proper, 1928 was stated not only in paragraph 4 of
the amendment being a substantial element the complaint but repeated in the prayer
of the cause of action.—We find that the and in the pre-trial admissions.—Similarly,
Trial Court correctly exercised its discretion we find no error in the denial by the Trial
in denying plaintiff-apellant’s Motion to Court of plaintiff-appellant’s Motion to
Amend paragraph 4 of the Complaint and recall or correct some pre-trial admissions.
paragraph (b) of the Prayer by changing Pursuant to Sec. 4, Rule 20 of the Rules of
the year “1928” to 1961. x x x The Court, the Order entered at the pre-trial
amendment sought is a substantial one. A controls the subsequent course of the action,
claim of possession by either or both parties Furthermore, under Rule 129, section 2, it is
involving a span of 33 years is surely a necessary for a party who desires to be
substantial element of the cause of action. relieved of the effects of admissions in the
Besides, even if the amendment were pleadings and any admissions made in the
course of the trial, to show that the Same; Same; Cancellation of title of
admission had been made through palpable plaintiff in the reversion case means he has
mistake. In this case, that there was no lost any cause of action he had in the
such palpable mistake is ejectment case.—And more significantly,
since plaintiff-appellant’s title was cancelled
_______________ in the Reversion Case, he has lost any cause
of action he may have had in the Ejectment
* FIRST DIV ISION. Case. The appeal in the Reversion Case
(CA-G.R. No. 41960-R) had been resolved
against plaintiff-appellant on December 13,
219 1972.

APPEAL from the decision of the

Court of First Instance of Leyte, Br.
VOL. 136, APRIL 30, 1985 219 IV.
Gotico vs. Leyte Chinese Chamber of
Commerce The facts are stated in the opinion of
the Court.
     Fermin Q. Quejada for plaintiff-
shown by the fact that the year “1928” was
appellant.
stated not only in paragraph 4 of the
     Segundo M. Zosa for defendant-
Complaint, but repeated in the Prayer, and
appellee.
reiterated in the Pre-trial admissions.
Same; Same; Rule on liberality of MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:
construction of the Rules, not applicable;
Reason.—Under the circumstances The erstwhile Court of Appeals
obtaining and in the face of the evidence, certified this appeal from the Decision
the rule on liberality of construction of the of the Court of First Instance of Leyte,
Rules cannot be successfully invoked. To do Branch IV, Tacloban City, in Civil
so would be obstructive of the interests of Case No. 3088, to this instance, as the
substantial justice. issues raised involve pure questions of
law.
 The controversy revolves around Portion and utilized the same as a
the ownership of a portion of Lot No. private cemetery and that:
4875 of the Tacloban Cadastre, with a
total area of 1,306 sq. ms., situated at “plaintiff demands a monthly rental of the
Bo. Utap, Litid District, Tacloban City. above portion of land of P500.00 to be
The Disputed Portion consists of computed from 1 date of defendant’s
approximately 872 square meters. occupancy in 1928” (italics supplied)
On July 13, 1961, plaintiff-
Plaintiff-appellant then prayed for
appellant obtained Original Certificate
judgment ordering defendant-appellee
of Title No. P-139 covering the entirety
to vacate the Disputed Portion and to
of the said Lot 4875.
declare him the lawful owner and
On the strength of that title,
possessor thereof and
plaintiff-appellant filed the instant
case for Ejectment (Civil Case No. “(b) ordering defendant to pay the amount
3088), against of P200,000.00 in rentals of the premises in
question, to be computed from 1928 to the
220
filing of the complaint x x x” (Italics ours).

220 SUPREME COURT REPORTS Defendant-appellee traversed the

ANNOTATED Complaint by claiming that it had
been in possession of the Disputed
Gotico vs. Leyte Chinese Chamber of
Portion since 1928 when it built a
Commerce
public cemetery thereon with the
approval of the Bureau of Health; that
defendant-appellee, the Leyte Chinese plaintiff-appellant had obtained title to
Chamber of Commerce, on August 8, Lot 4875 by means of fraud and false
1962. The Complaint alleged that statements of fact; and that on May 2,
plaintiff-appellant was the “owner and 1962, or prior to the institution of the
possessor since time immemorial Ejectment Case, it had already
tacked by purchase to his predecessors- petitioned the Bureau of Lands for the
in-interest of Lot 4875;” that cancellation of plaintiff-appellant’s
defendant-appellee, without any color title over Lot 4875. Defendant-appellee
of right, had occupied the Disputed
then prayed for the dismissal of the “x x x stipulations and admissions in Civil
Complaint and for the declaration of Case 3618 in so far as they are material and
plaintiff-appellant’s title as null and relevant to Case 3088 shall be taken into
void. consideration in said Case 3088, and that
On January 29, 1965, the Bureau of whatever stipulations and admissions made
Lands filed Civil Case No. 3618 by the parties in Case 3088 in so far as
2
they
entitled “Republic of the Philippines, are pertinent to said Civil Case 3618.”
represented by the Director of Lands
vs. Bonifacio Gotico and the Register of In the same Pre-trial hearing, the
Deeds of Tacloban City.” for the parties stipulated on the following
reversion of Lot 4875 to the facts:
Government and the cancellation of
“1) the admission of the
plaintiff-appellant’s title (Reversion
allegations of paragraphs 1, 2,
Case).
3, and 4 of the complaint;
Considering that both cases (Civil
Cases Nos. 3088 and “2) that the cemetery owned by the
Leyte Chinese Chamber of
Commerce is within Lot 4875
_______________
and is occupying an area of 872
1 Complaint, paragraph 4. square meters;
“3) that the defendant had been
221
occupying and using the said
land in question since 1928;
VOL. 136, APRIL 30, 1985 221 “4) that Lot 4875, where the
Gotico vs. Leyte Chinese Chamber of cemetery in question is also
Commerce included, is covered by OCT
No. P-139, marked Exhibit ‘A’
in Civil Case No. 3088 and as
3618) involved the same parties and
Exhibit ‘1’ in Civil Case No.
the same subject matter, the parties
3168, and that after the
agreed that the two cases be jointly
issuance of OCT No. P-139,
heard. A joint Pre-trial was held
there was issued Tax
wherein both parties agreed that:
 Declaration No. 17392, in the ANNOTATED
name of BONIFACIO GOTICO Gotico vs. Leyte Chinese Chamber of
and which is marked as Exhibit Commerce
‘B’ in Civil Case No. 3088 and
as Exhibit ‘2’ in Civil Case No.
3 tioned Pre-trial Agreement. The Court
3618.” (Italics supplied.)
denied the Motion for amendment
and/or correction for being
Realizing that the admission as to the
unmeritorious. Two Motions for
date of commencement of defendant-
Reconsideration filed by plaintiff-
appellee’s possession made in
appellant met with the same fate.
paragraph 3 of the aforesaid Pre-trial
In the meantime, the Reversion
agreement, as well as the averments
Case was decided in favor of the
made in paragraph 4 of the Complaint
Government and plaintiff-appellant’s
and in the Prayer thefeof were fatal to
title was ordered cancelled upon the
his cause, plaintiff-appellant, assisted
finding that he had, in collusion with
by a new counsel, filed an “Omnibus
the Land Investigator, committed
Motion to Amend Complaint and
fraud that vitiated the grant of his
Recall or Correct some Pre-trial
Free Patent.
Admissions.” The thrust was to amend
On the basis of said judgment,
the year “1928” to 1961 not only in
defendant-appellee filed a Motion for
paragraph 4 and in the Prayer of the
Summary Judgment in the Reversion
Complaint but also in the aforemen-
Case alleging that there is “no genuine
issue between the parties x x x and the
_______________ defendant is entitled as a matter of law
to the dismissal of the x x x case.”
2 T.s.n., pp. 18-49, July 14, 1966.
Summary judgment was rendered
3 T.s.n., pp. 13-18, Joint Pre-trial Hearing in
therein ordering reversion of Lot 4875
Civil Cases Nos. 3088 and 3618, July 14, 1966.
to the State.
222 Subsequently, in the Ejectment
Case, the trial Court rendered
judgment dismissing the suit, after
222 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
opining that:
“x x x the Court has, therefore, no “2. The Trial Court erred in
alternative but to render in this case a dismissing the case on the
Decision which must be consistent with the ground that per decision of the
Decision of this Court in Civil Case No. same Trial Court of the other
3618, especially upon a consideration of the Civil Case No. 3618 involving
admission of Bonifacio Gotico, not only in the same subject matter, for
his complaint but also in the pre-trial reversion by the
hearing, that the defendant had been
occupying the land in question since 1928.” 223
“IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING
CONSIDERATIONS, the Court, therefore,
VOL. 136, APRIL 30, 1985 223
orders the dismissal of this case with costs
against the plaintiff.” Gotico vs. Leyte Chinese Chamber of
Commerce
Hence, the appeal to the then Court of
Appeals. The following Assignments of Republic of the Philippines
Error were raised: represented by the Director of
Lands, as said Decision was
“1. The Trial Court erred in
appealed as CA-G.R. No.
dismissing the case at bar
41960-R, has not as yet become
simply due to the erroneous
final and could not be the basis
allegation of previous counsel
of grounds for dismissal of the
that possession by the
case at bar, and;
defendant-appellee Leyte
Chinese Chamber of “3. The Trial Court erred in
Commerce was since 1928 dismissing the case at bar as its
instead of 1961, as the same conclusion is contrary to law,
was never the intention of the the evidence and Supreme
plaintiff, but 1961 when the Court Decisions.”
Leyte Chinese Cemetery was
transferred to appellant’s lot; 1. We find that the Trial Court
correctly exercised its discretion in
denying plaintiff-appellant’s Motion to
Amend paragraph 4 of the Complaint portion had remained part of a
and paragraph (b) of the Prayer by Chinese cemetery. Its possession since
changing the year “1928” to 1961. 1928 was also recognized in the
Section 3, Rule 10 of the Rules of Court Reversion Case. All of which disprove
provides: plaintiff-appellant’s allegations in his
application for a Free Patent that:
“Sec. 3. Amendments by leave of court.—
After the case is set for hearing, substantial “4. The land described and applied for—is
amendments may be made only upon leave not claimed or occupied by any other
of court. But such leave may be refused if it person, but is a public land. I entered upon
appears to the court that the motion was and began cultivation of the same on the
made with intent to delay the action or that 28th day of January, 1961, and since that
the cause of action or defense is date I have made thereon the following
substantially altered. Orders of the court improvements, viz:
upon the matters provided in this section
shall be made upon motion filed in court, 224
and after notice to the adverse party, and
an opportunity to be heard.” 224 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
ANNOTATED
The amendment sought is a
Gotico vs. Leyte Chinese Chamber of
substantial one. A claim of possession Commerce
by either or both parties involving a
span of 33 years is surely a substantial bamboos, bananas and coconut.”
4

element of the cause of action. Besides,

even if the amendment were allowed, Similarly, we find no error in the
there is preponderant evidence denial by the Trial Court of plaintiff-
proving possession by defendant- appellant’s Motion to recall or correct
appellee since 1928. It had filed the some pre-trial admissions. Pursuant to
application for the conversion of the Sec. 4, Rule 20 of the Rules of Court,
Disputed Portion into a cemetery on the Order entered at the pre-trial
February 20, 1928. Its application was controls the subsequent course of the
approved on May 17, 1928 by the action. Furthermore, under Rule 129,
Bureau of Health. Since then, that section 2, it is necessary for a party
who desires to be relieved of the effects had been resolved against plaintiff-
of admissions in the pleadings and any appellant on December 13, 1972.
admissions made in the course of the 3. The foregoing discussions also
trial, to show that the admission had dispose of the third issue raised, which
been made through palpable mistake. is but a consequence of the first two
In this case, that there was no such errors assigned.
palpable mistake is shown by the fact WHEREFORE, the judgment of the
that the year “1928” was stated not then Cout of First Instance of Leyte,
only in paragraph 4 of the Complaint, Branch IV, is hereby affirmed in toto.
but repeated in the Prayer, and Costs against plaintiff-appellant.
reiterated in the Pre-trial admissions. SO ORDERED.
Under the circumstances obtaining
and in the face of the evidence, the rule _______________
on liberality of construction of the
Rules cannot be successfully invoked. 4 Record on Appeal, p. 10.
To do so would be obstructive of the
225
interests of substantial justice.
2. The second error raised is neither
meritorious. Plaintiff-appellant who VOL. 136, APRIL 30, 1985 225
had agreed with defendant-appellee
Bongat vs. Bureau of Labor Relations
that the evidence in either of the two
consolidated cases, when relevant,
would be considered in the other, is      Teehankee (Chairman), Plano,
now estopped from asserting the Relova, Gutierrez, Jr., De la Fuente and
contrary now that he had lost both Alampay, JJ., concur.
cases.
Judgment affirmed.
And more significantly, since
plaintiff-appellant’s title was cancelled Notes.—The Supreme Court,
in the Reversion Case, he has lost any interpreting the provisions of Section 1
cause of action he may have had in the and 2, Rule 20, of the Rules of Court
Ejectment Case. The appeal in the has uniformly emphasized that pre-
Reversion Case (CA-G.R. No. 41960-R) trial is mandatory, that the parties as
 well as their counsel are required to
appear thereat, and that dismissal of
the suit for non-appearance of the
appellant at the pre-trial is sanctioned
by the Rules. (International Harvester
Mcleod, Inc. vs. Co Ban Ling & Sons
Co., 25 SCRA 612.)
One of the objectives of pre-trial
procedure is to take the trial of cases
out of the realm of surprise and
maneuvering. (Permanent Concrete
Products, Inc. vs. Teodoro, 26 SCRA
332.)

——o0o——

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.