ASSIGNMENT NO.

8: FOUR KINDS OF DEFECTIVE CONTRACTS

AND NATURAL OBLIGATIONS

[G.R. No. L-17884 November 29, 1965]

ADOLFO GASPAR, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LEOPOLDO DORADO,
in his capacity as Provincial Sheriff Ex-Officio, C. N. HODGES,
and VISAYAN SURETY & INSURANCE COMPANY, defendants, C.
N. HODGES and VISAYAN SURETY & INSURANCE,
CORPORATION, defendants-appellants.

Facts:
1. Petitioner's/Plaintiff's claim/s

Plaintiff claimed that he had quired ownership of the land

in question through a prior sale to him and its registration in
the Capiz land registry and that when a judgment was
rendered in favor of Hodges and against Alamodin by the
municipal Court Iloilo City, the latter s no longer the owner.
Having thus aimed for exclusive ownership, the plaintiff
merely prayed for damages in his original complaint, to wit:
P100.00 for expenses; P300.00 for attorney’s fees,
andP1,000.00 as moral damages.

2. Respondent’s/Defendant’s claim/s

Defendants-appellants argue that the Court of the first

instance of Capiz did not acquire jurisdiction over the case
under the allegation of the original complaint because the
cause of action therein was for recovery of damages in the
aggregate sum of less than P2,000.00 and therefore was not
cognizable by said Court but by the corresponding Justice of
the Peace Court or Municipal Court; and that lacking
jurisdiction in the first place the Court of First Instance erred
 "in allowing another complaint which prays for the annulment
of the sale." Furthermore, they seek to have said prior sale set
aside on the ground that it was executed in fraud of Hodges,
upon the presumption outlined in Article 1387 of the civil code.

3. Decision on lower courts

Court of Appeals- After the defendants filed their answer,
but before trial was commenced, the plaintiff was permitted by
the CFI to file an amended complaint wherein he expressly
prayed for annulment of the sale in favor of C.N. Hodges. The
CFI did not award damages but declared the prior sale to Gaspar
as valid and the one executed by the Sheriff in favor of Hodges
as null and void.

ISSUES
4. Issue/s
Whether or not should the amendment of the original
complaint into an annulment of sale is taken cognizance by the
same court.

HELD:
5. Disposition of the case
The judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs.
6. Dictum
There is authority for the proposition that when it appears
from the very face of the complaint at the Court no jurisdiction
over the subject matter of the case, amendment of the complaint
could not be allowed to confer jurisdiction over the case r to t
validly herein. Rosario Carandang, 96 Phil. 845. Explaining the
principle in another way, this Court has ruled that whenever
possible the amendment of a defective pleading should be
allowed, but that "when it is evident that the court has no
jurisdiction over the person and the subject matter, that the
pleading is so fatally defective as not to be susceptible of the
amendment, or that to permit such amendment would radically
alter the theory and the nature of the action, then the court may
refuse the amendment of the defective pleading and order the
dismissal of the case. " Alvarez vs. Praxedes The Comm. of the
Phil., 65 Phil.302. Applying this test in the instant case we find
that in his original complaint plaintiff put in issue the validity of
the sheriff sale in favor of defendant Hodges and claimed
exclusive and absolute ownership of the property in question by
the prior sale in his favor and its registration in the land registry
of Capiz. The resolution of this question, on which the plaintiff's
prayer for damages was predicated and without which no the
decision could be rendered, was within the jurisdiction of the
court of First Instance of Capiz. The amendment of the
complaint, therefore, was merely a matter of form and not of
substance, and the Court a quo committed no error in allowing it.