G.R. No. 1476. March 19, 1904

The original complaint described the lands by reference to a
document marked “A,” which was attached to the complaint. The amended
complaint contained this clause: “The estate is described in detail in
Exhibit A, which is hereto attached, and the plaintiffs ask that it be
considered as an integral part of this complaint.” Exhibit A was,
however, not attached to the amended complaint, but remained attached
to the original complaint. Section 106 of the Code of Civil Procedure
provides that pleadings shall be liberally construed. Applying this
rule, we think that the amended complaint should be considered as if
Exhibit A had been physically attached to it. No harm is done to the
defendants by this holding. They had in the original complaint the
exhibit and were fully informed of its contents. In his decision
sustaining the demurrer the judge below evidently took this view of the
matter.

With this Exhibit A attached the amended complaint stated the
pueblo, barrio, and sitios in which the land was situated. It stated
the purpose to which it was devoted, that it contained 309 hectares and
5 ares, and gave its boundaries. This is a good description as against
a demurrer.

The amended complaint describes only one tract of land. This appears
in almost every paragraph thereof. The fact that in paragraph 9 it is
stated that certain of the defendants took illegal possession of
various parts of this tract can not be allowed to overcome the
allegation in paragraph 7 to the effect that the defendants had taken possession of the lands of the plaintiffs.

It is claimed by the appellees that the case is improperly before
this court. When the court below sustained the demurrer the plaintiffs
excepted. They did not then attempt to bring the case here upon that
exception. They waited until the court made its orders of July 10 and
11, dismissing the action. They then interposed the remedy of appeal
against these two orders. Tins document, called an appeal, was
equivalent to an exception to these orders and must be so considered.

The order of July 11 put an end to the case. It was the final
judgment therein, and, having excepted thereto, the plaintiffs had then
the right to remove the case to this court. Upon that removal, by the
terms of section 143, they had the right to have reviewed ” all
rulings, orders, and judgments made in the action to which the party
has
duly excepted.” That includes in this case the order sustaining the
demurrer.

Although in view of the result arrived at it is not necessary, yet
we will add that we agree with the appellant that dismissal was not the
proper way to terminate this case. The demurrer to the complaint having
been sustained and the plaintiffs having refused to amend, the court
should have entered judgment for the defendants to the effect that the
plaintiffs take nothing by the action and the defendants recover their
costs.

The plaintiffs took an exception to the order of the court below
refusing to appoint a receiver. They have, however, neither assigned
this ruling as error nor mentioned it in their brief. The exception
must be considered as abandoned.

The judgment is reversed and the case remanded with instructions to
the court below to overrule the demurrer to the amended complaint and
proceed with the case in accordance with law, with costs of this
instance against the appellees.

Arellano, C. J., Torres, Cooper, Mapa, McDonough, and Johnson, JJ., concur.