DOLORES BUENAVENTURA, ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF THE DECEASED ESCOLASTICO BUENAVENTURA, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. CELESTINO BUENAVENTURA AND ANGELES BUENAVENTU…

This
is an action brought by the administratrix of the deceased Escolastico
Buenaventura to recover a piece of land allegedly belonging to the
latter, the complaint alleging that the said piece of land was among
those entrusted by the deceased to his brother Celestino for his
administration; that after the death of Escolastico in 1948, Celestino,
together with his daughter Angeles, claim ownership of the land and
refused to give the estate of the deceased its share of the products
thereof.

Defendants admit that the land in question was
among those entrusted to Celestino for administration but that on
November 7, 1946, it was sold by Escolastico to defendant Angeles
Buenaventura and by virtue of the deed covering the sale, an original
certificate of title was issued in favor of the vendee in Cadastral
Case No. 7, G. L. R. O. No. 759.

Replying to this
allegation, plaintiff specifically denied under oath the genuineness
and due execution of the alleged deed of sale.

Upon the case
being called for trial, the court ordered the clerk to produce the
record of the cadastral case above-mentioned, and having verified from
said record that title had really been issued to Angeles, the court motu proprio
dismissed the complaint in open court for lack of cause of action. The
court, however, on the same occasion upon motion of plaintiff revoked
its order of dismissal and ordered the parties to file an agreed
statement of facts with memoranda within ten days from June 22, 1950.
Acting on this order, counsel for plaintiff, then in Manila, sent
counsel for defendants, then in Dipolog, Zamboanga, a proposed agreed
statement of facts dated June 26, 1950. But counsel for defendants
would not sign the proposed agreement, and plaintiff filed an amended,
complaint, dated June 28, 1950, alleging that the land in question had
already been adjudicated in favor of the deceased Escolastico
Buenaventura on June 4, 1940 and an order promulgated on August 20, for
the issuance of the corresponding decree and certificate of title, but
that defendants, through a fraudulent document of sale purportedly
signed by the deceased Escolastico, had illegally secured the issuance
of the original certificate of title in favor of the defendant Angeles
Buenaventura. This amended complaint was received by the clerk of court
on July 6, but it was not accompanied by any motion for leave of court.

This was the state of affairs when on July 14, 1950, the court handed
down an order dismissing the case on the ground that the parties were
not able to file an agreed statement of facts and memoranda despite the
warning that the case would be dismissed upon their failure to do so.
The amended complaint was also ordered stricken from the record as
having been filed without leave of court and notice to the opposing
party.

Reconsideration of this order having been denied,
plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeals, but that court has
certified the case here on the ground that the appeal only involves
questions of law.

Appellant contends that the trial court
erred (1) in dismissing the original complaint for failure of the
parties to enter into an agreed statement of facts and submit their
memoranda; (2) in disallowing plaintiff’s amended complaint; and (3) in
holding that the amended complaint constituted a collateral attack on a
Torrens certificate of title.

It appearing that the amended
complaint was filed after defendants had already filed their answer,
the admission thereof had to be with the leave of court under section
2, Rule 17, Rules of Court. As the amended complaint was filed without
such leave and even without notice to the adverse party, the court
acted within its authority in ordering it stricken from the record.
With the amended complaint stricken out, it becomes unnecessary to
decide whether the said amended complaint constituted a collateral
attack on an original certificate of title.

We believe,
however, that the trial court acted rather hastily in ordering the
dismissal of the case. There was no motion for that purpose. The reason
given by the court was that the parties had failed to file their
promised agreed statement of facts and memoranda within a period of ten
days. As counsel for appellant rightly observes in his brief, the
court’s reasoning would put it within the power of one party to have a
case dismissed by simply not signing any stipulation of facts which his
adversary might propose. We think that the ends of justice would have
been better served had the trial court, upon being apprised that the
parties could not agree on the facts, set the case for hearing and
permitted them to present evidence on those matters where no agreement
could be reached.

In view of the foregoing, the order of
dismissal is hereby revoked and the case ordered remanded to the court
below for further proceedings in which plaintiff should be given an
opportunity to ask for leave for the filing of her amended complaint as
provided in the Rules. Without costs.

Paras, C. J., Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, Jugo, Bautista Angelo and Labrador, JJ., concur.