Você está na página 1de 8

Eleuterio Dura died on December 31, 1932 leaving a widow, Andrea Azur, and some collateral relatives as heirs.

On
the occasion of his death on his intestate proceedings were initiated before the Court of First Instance of Camarines
Sur, having been named the widow property manager. The corresponding assessment and claims commission was
formed to which Timothy Arroyo filed a claim for services rendered as a domestic servant to the spouses referred by a
period of 12 years from the year 1921 until he died Dura said Eleuterio. According to Arroyo, verbally contracted
services at the rate of P10 per month with no fixed deadline for payment, with the understanding of the parties that
such services could be paid later, sometimes in money, sometimes in kind, or a piece of arable land. Timothy services
ranging from purely home to the farming and harvesting in coconut and abaca plantations and rice fields of their
masters. Timothy received no payment Eleuterio life. .

The commission claims assessment and proceeded to consider the claim of Arroyo at its meeting of January 16,
1939, after the hearing and issued an order for payment to the claimant in the amount of P1,200, rejecting the
opposition filed by collateral relatives of the deceased. Opponents not comply with the ruling of the commission of
assessment and claims thereof appealed to before the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur. Reproduced the
claim before that Court by the opening of the corresponding demand, opponents raised again his opposition asking
among other things that application is closed for being out of time. The widow, included as a defendant, in his concept
of administrator, legal goods, submitted its reply admitting the verbal lease services alleged by the applicant, but fixing
the monthly salary in P8 ..

The court rejected the motion for dismissal and proceeded to watch the claim at the bottom. After the complainant's
tests articulated mainly consistent in his testimony and that of the surviving spouse, Andrea Azur, - evidence that
came to substantially establish the terms of the contract - opponents and defendants requested the dismissal of the
claim for the reason that the evidence does not sufficiently established the right of action of the plaintiff. The court
estimated the motion favorably by dismissing the claim on the grounds that there was a written contract between the
parties and, therefore, do not fit any effective action against intestacy under the statute to prevent fraud (Article 335,
Law No . 190, and Article 21, Rule 123, Rules of the Court). So judgment pronounced against the applicant has
brought the present appeal. .

The first question that arises is whether the lower court was right or not to dismiss the plaintiff's claim just because the
alleged leasing services this is not formalized by a written contract between the parties. The lower court seems to
have the idea that the contract in question falls under the law of fraud just because the services alleged by the
complainant lasted more than a year. This is a mistake. Article 21, Rule 123, Rules of the Court, which is to be a
reproduction of Article 335 of the Code of Civil Procedure, reads:.

Sec. 21. Which Agreements must be evidenced by writing. - The following agreements can not be PROVED except by
writing, or by some note or memorandum thereof, Sought subscribed by the party to be charged, or by His agent, or
by secondary evidence of Its contents:.

(A) An agreement by STI terms That is not to be Performed Within a year from the making thereof;

xxxxxxxxx

There is no doubt that the contract in question is not of this kind. It is clear from the plaintiff cars entered the service of
Dura Eleuterio and Andrea Azur husbands as domestic servant by a monthly salary of P10 without a fixed term.
There was nothing in this verbal contract on leasing services to indicate that it could not comply within one year
following the grant date. The contract was based precisely monthly and for domestic chores and tasks of immediate
land. Such chores and duties were such that they could be evacuated immediately within one year. The mere fact that
the services have been repeated and extended by several years and that the amount thereof has not been paid, could
not have the effect of converting the contract in one of those covered under the law for the purposes of fraud the
fulfillment of obligations from the contract. But still: It is well established doctrine and rule that the law on fraud is only
applicable to contracts moments (executory Contracts) and not those who have already been fully or partially
accomplished (Contracts Executed). Undoubtedly, in this case the contract had already been partially implemented,
as the servant or landlord had already yielded benefits and services to which they pledge and just missing the
fulfillment of the obligation to pay the price by the master or lessee, Dura ie Eleuterio or their successors in law
(Almirol and Carino against Monserrat, 48 Phil. Rep., 70) ..

Resolved the first question is that the lower court erred in dismissing the matter, the other issue that we have to
identify and resolve is whether to rule on the merits awarding the rights of the parties, or whether to order restitution
This source file to the Court to give the defendant an opportunity to practice their opponents tests, having the same
reserved the right to present them to submit their motion for dismissal. The record shows that when the lawyer asked
the opponents proceeded to judgment for the contract had not been tested, made the following words: "We submit the
motion for dismissal without renouncing our right to present evidence." The court reserved its decision. Some time
after his car dictated by estimating the motion to dismiss, making it unnecessary the presentation of evidence by the
defendants. .

We paid to this procedural question the further consideration in view of its transcendental importance and its
derivatives. We estimate imperative in the interest of the administration of justice lay a doctrine not of doubt or
equivocation. Fortunately, our jurisprudence on this issue is well defined and all we have to do in this case is to
strengthen, or at least implement. In the case of Moody, Aronson & Co. against Bilbao Hotel where a similar question
to the one in question we stated that was raised.

All things considered, we believe that better results are obtained if the load is imposed on the defendant to file a
motion to dismiss. The defendant after the plaintiff has presented its evidence, file a motion to dismiss, the court

below estimates in their decision, and who, on appeal by the applicant, is revoked the sentence, is not he be allowed
to present evidence in his defense. The demanding, introducing a motion to dismiss opts, in effect, stick to the failure
of the plaintiff's claims. Otherwise the result would invite unnecessary litigation. As a shining example we have the
case at hand that is about P400, raised on appeal in two instances, and, besides, if we accede to the request of the
defense, must be seen again with the possibility that even there another appeal.

The efforts of the courts must focus on establishing rules to avoid lengthy and costly litigation and to assist the
speedy dispatch of business. (Moody, Aronson & Co. v Hotel Bilbao, 50 Phil. Rep., 208, 210.)

The preinsertas considerations made by the Court after a brief analysis of the rotation of our jurisprudence on this
procedural point. This analysis shows that the first rule was considered in criminal cases; then it was applied in
electoral matters given its urgency; and for the first time extends the principle to ordinary civil affairs was made in that
judgment Moody, Aronson & Co. against Bilbao Hotel, on March 30, 1927.

After he returned to arise the same question in the case of Gonzales Castro against Azaola (63 Phil. Rep., 890
[1936]). The Court reaffirmed 'then the doctrine established in Case quoted above Moody, with the only difference
being that instead of dictating immediately sentence in the background, choose to order the return of the file to the
court for the practice of evidence of the defendant for the reason that this, in presenting his motion for dismissal in the
lower court had reserved the right to present evidence for the case that this motion is unsuccessful at first instance or
on appeal. But it is noteworthy that the Court did so with obvious reluctance and only to provide what appeared to be
a particular case and contingent equity. But unequivocally it condemned the procedure and the decisive and final
statement that was made.

it is the sense of this Court in cases such as the present case, the Court should require the defendant to present
evidence rather than issue a decision on his motion for dismissal, in order to avoid later, if he found the Court
erroneous decision, had to return the case to the court of origin to subsequent proceedings under the reservation
made by the defendant, who should not have been allowed, in presenting his motion to dismiss.

This doctrine does not admit more than an inference or interpretation is that forward as no reservation would be
allowed, but if you accidentally allowed the same and could not be used as legal grounds for the case to the lower
court be returned to the the joint effects of the classified evidence. If the doctrine not be interpreted in this way, never
the same would apply rigorously, because if a Court of First Instance to make a mistake again allowing same
reservation and we were to conclude, as in this case, of having to revoke the decision of this court, we would always
invoke equity for the return of the matter, and so on, without any limitation of final character. Hence the need to put a
ceiling, a definitive, "ceiling" strict in the application of the rule, and we believe that this case provides that opportunity.

Did you say that the appellants in this case could we have come disoriented by the lack of a fixed rule and inflexible,
but this excuse is worthless if one takes into account that when the present case (1939) was initiated and doctrine
sitting in that case against Azaola Castro Gonzalez (1936) was in full force. And then everyone was warned that it
was the sense of this Court in cases of this nature, and what would his conduct if a similar situation arises. Therefore,
the defendants in presenting his motion to dismiss with the addition of Reservation possibly articulate their evidence,
did acquiescing to the risk that this reserve is rejected on appeal as we do today. The intention of the Court was clear,
strict and decisive: multiplication and avoid prolonged litigation, which always hated not only by the disturbance and
causing anomaly in life and in business of the individual, but also so They cost in money and energies both the citizen
and the state. And transcribed the words of this Court in the case of Moody Calvary speaking litigant in a lawsuit by
the delay P400 supposed forwarding the case to the court of origin, they have perfect application to the present case.
The amount litigated here is a little over P1,000. The plaintiff served as a domestic servant for 12 consecutive years to
establish its right to this money. His master or principal died in 1932 and since then the servant has been trying to
collect what is owed. In 1939 he presented his complaint to the commission of assessment and claims the intestate
and there won; but the heirs of the deceased, unless the widow, not satisfied with the verdict of the commission and
the issue was raised on appeal before the Court of First Instance. And here, we present all its evidence claimant;
opponents, rather than refute, raise a motion for dismissal under the allegation that the action was ineffective by a
written contract between the servant and his master, reserving not been held, however, the right to articulate their
evidence in the case that your motion does not succeed. The court access and supersedes the motion demand,
becoming unnecessary the presentation of evidence by defendants or opponents. The issue before us on appeal is
brought; Wrong we find the decision of the court, but as this book gets tell us that we should not still decide the matter
at its bottom, but you have to return the case to the lower court to give opportunity to the respondents to submit their
tests, the possibility that the matter back again to the Supreme Court in a new appeal. And entretante several years
have passed - since 1932 - and probably take some time more, without the plaintiff see the fine of his labor, as if if
were repeated to some extent the tantalizing, that is, when it seems that the goal is at your fingertips, it vanishes like
a mirage, a delusion of the eyes. Certainly a judicial procedure that can result in the throes of this torment should not
be tolerated any longer.

Our conclusion, therefore, is that the rule should be reaffirmed and implemented rigorously. When the defendant gets
what is called demurrer to the sufficiency of the evidence of the plaintiff filing a motion for dismissal for the reason that
such evidence is insufficient or ineffective to substantiate the claim, you are not entitled to reserve the presentation of
their evidence but It must abide by the resultancias of the demurrer to both favorable and adverse for what. If the
motion is thriving and the decision is sustained on appeal, the case finally ends; but also it ends the same way if the
decision is revocaday raised the Court finds that there is sufficient evidence and to give judgment on the merits in
favor of the complainant reasons. Naturally, the effect of this is to eliminate these so-called reservation casosla test,
forcing all parties to settle their disputes in a single view. .

Does it say that this becomes purely academic demurrer to the sufficiency of the evidence allowed in our rules and
procedural practices. We understand that not. Because there will always be cases where the party electing to use that
resource Trust and rest in the entirely superfluous estimating the joint tests. Only we know that under the rule in
question has no recourse tactical value, for purposes of scoring, it is direct and final. .

Is there sufficient evidence in the record so we can issue a ruling on the merits? This question is asked because the
rule presupposes that requirement: that the proceedings have the basis for a decision on the merits. And that
foundation exists. We have two undisputed evidence in support of the application: from the same applicant, and
Andrea Azur, widow of principal and administrator of intestate. Here is the statement by the widow of the applicant's
services.

Q. From when the plaintiff Timothy Arroyo has served you as a farmer, you and your husband Eleuterio Dura? - R.
Since 1921.

Q. Until her husband died Eleuterio Dura? - A. Yes, sir.

Q. What was the nature of work of the plaintiff Timothy Arroyo has served while you and your husband? - A. When it
was time of picking fruits coconuts, the unhooked, then into coconut oil and other work more from home.

Q. During the time of sowing of paddy what works to Timothy Arroyo? - R. During the time of arable plowing the field,
sowing of rice and carrying seeds. .

Q. And during the time that the abaca benefited to the complainant what Timothy Arroyo? - R. helped with the benefit
of abaca and cleaned the abacales.

Q. Do you mean that the plaintiff Timothy Arroyo has worked since he entered the service you and your husband to
death of it? - A. Yes, sir.

Q. Was the plaintiff Timothy Arroyo paid for his work as a farmer and services from you? - R. We had agreed to give
him a monthly salary of P10, but if we could not give or pay P10 per month, would give ground in payment for their
services.

Mr. DE LEON: We ordered the dismissal of the statement of the witness unless the alleged agreement embodied in a
written contract.

COURT: No place.

Mr. DE LEON: Exception.

Mr. CONOWON:

Q. During the life or life of her late husband Dura Eleuterio you agree if the fixed payment or any amount as
compensation for the services provided by the plaintiff Timothy Arroyo, or not?

Mr. DE LEON: Objection, unless it is in writing that contract.

COURT: You can answer.

Mr. DE LEON: Exception.

A. Yes, sir; It has been set at P10 per month.

Mr. CONOWON.

Q. The plaintiff Timothy Arroyo has already been paid for services rendered by you and your husband for his life? - R.
has not paid yet. (T. n. T., Pp. 3-5.)

It is doubtful that these tests sick puedieran be overcome, aunquea defendants and opponents were allowed to refute.
No transpires in cars any reason that the widow had to testify against the interests of the intestate, and naturally also
against their interests as a widow and heiress, as it was not under the imperatives of truth and a good conscience.
We have reviewed the evidence of the applicant in more detail and we are perfectly convinced that the leasing
services in question has been well established, as well as the fact that so far has not made any payment under the
terms of the agreement. In fact it can be presumed that opponents did not have any serious evidence to present
against the right of action of the plaintiff; so they decided to raise the motion for dismissal without articulating any
evidence. .

In the auto appealed the claim that the "compensation (the appellant) had not been previously agreed," and this
seems to want to conclude that the contract in question came not perfect because there is no certain price, it is made
under as provided in Article 1544 of the Civil Code which states: ". in the lease of works or services, a party to
ejecutaruna work or provide a service to another for a price it undertakes" But this article has been interpreted to
mean that there is some money not only when its certainty is fixedly determined but also when referring to known and
some other thing, or that their marking is left to the discretion of a particular person, under Article 1447 of the Civil
Code. There is also a certain price when it can be noted and determined under the uses and customs. What's more, it
has stated that "the contracts are presumed concluded by tacit consent of the parties, born obligations may be
grounds for an action to enforce them before the courts," and that "accepted and performed a service for individual in
favor of another, and there is no record that free were, the latter is obliged to remunerate under innominate contract
facio ut des or lease of tacitly contracted services, "in which case the court shall determine the reasonable value of
services . (Perez against Pomar, 2 Jur Fil, 713;.. Smith and against Lopez and Lopez Reyes Pineda 5 Jur Fil, 80, in
the judgment of 18 Octobre 1899 the Supreme Court of Spain cited;.. Herrera against Cruz Herrera, 7 Jur Fil, 282;..
Marajabas against Leonardo 11 Jur Fil, 278,.. Imperial with Alejandre, 14 Jur Fil, 206;.. G. Urrutia y Compania against
Pasig Steamer & Lighter Co., 22 Jur Fil, 338;.. Sellner against Gonzalez, 27 Jur Fil, 683)... In the present case has
shown that in the place where the services were rendered to the usual farm raised wages was P0.50 per day.
However, the monthly salary of P10, as is clear from the evidence, was the agreement between the parties, it is
reasonable to all lights, even in the absence of prior express stipulation. It's the least that a domestic servant and
deserves tillage charge anywhere in the archipelago. Give less would be to encourage certain types of covet that
works against the most basic dictates of agrarian justice and is the determining cause of the concerns and disruption
of social peace in some of our rural communities. .

However, the testimony of the applicant and the widow for the reason that these, according to the law, could not testify
against recused intestate; and it is argued that eliminated both cars evidence is not in any proof in support of the
demand. Consider one by one these challenges. .

The objection against the testimony of the widow is based on Rule 123, Rule 26, paragraph (d) of the Courts Rules,
which reads: "the husband can not be considered for or against his wife without the this consent, the wife may be
examined either for or against her husband without the consent of this ". Obviously the rule is not applicable in this
case because the husband having died, and there is no marital relationship, "the widow is not the wife and, therefore,
may testify as any other witnesses either in favor or in against intestacy of her husband "(Williams vs. Moore [Mo.
App.] 203 SW, 824, 835).

(Sec. 151) (c) Death of one spouse. - As general rule, after the death of one spouse, the other is held to competent
witness Either for or Against decedent's interest in any litigation Concerning decedent's estate, except as his or her
competency May be Affected by the rules Against the disclosure of confidential communications, or testimony as to
communications or transactions With since deceased persons. (Corpus Juris, Vol. 70, p. 124).

Now is the objection against the testimony of the plaintiff, founded in Rule 123, Rule 26, paragraph (c), formerly
Article 383, par. 7, Code of Civil Procedure, which stipulates that: "the parties or the cause of these in a lawsuit or
action, or persons on whose behalf such suit or action filed against the executor or administrator or representative of
a person mentally difuntoo incapacitated, about the claim or suit against the property of the deceased or mentally
disabled person can not testify about a matter of fact that had occurred before the death of such person or before the
other is any mentally incapacitated. " It is argued that under this rule you could not allow the applicant to declare
about verbal lease services - matter of which occurred before the death of Dura Eleuterio. "If death has sealed the lips
of one of the parties, the law follows the procedure sellarselos also the other" Maxilom against Tabotabo 9 Phil. Rep.,
399, 403). The objection would be valid and good if in this case does not mediate the fact that the same widow, if and
as defendant in his concept of administrator of intestate expressly waive the privilege, declaring in favor of the plaintiff.
How to impose the interdiction against the actor if the same party to whom the law seeks to protect under the cloak of
privilege has waived the benefits of such interdiction? As things stand now, the main evidence in favor of demand is
the testimony of the administrator or legal representative of the deceased who is at the same time surviving spouse.
Indeed, the testimony of Timothy does not come to be more than a corroboration and may well be deleted without
suffering, failing that, the substantiation and effectiveness of the right of action of the plaintiff.

The final issue raised by opponents appealed refers to the expiration of the right of action of the applicant by the
demand for the law being out of time before the Court of First Instance, under the terms of the Code of Civil
Procedure as it has been renovated No. 4229. According to the opposition, the claimant I was notified of his appeal
against the decision of the commission of assessment and claims the June 3, 1939, and the complaint was not
reproduced in the form of action before the Court of First Instance but on September 6, 1939, ie 93 days later. It is
argued that this Court lost jurisdiction over the matter. Nor is it sustainable this claim that the said article, as has been
refurbished, authorizes the Court to signal time within which the claimant must file your lawsuit and this is what
happened in this case: Complaint filed within the deadline set by the Court.

In merits of the above, it is condemned to intestate Eleuterio Dura to pay the applicant and appellant the sum of
P1,440 as compensation for its services for 12 years, at the rate of P10 per month, plus legal interest from the filing of
the complaint and court costs. If the intestate persons without funds to meet such payment you are authorized the
administrator to give the applicant an area equivalent to that effect giving the deed with the approval of the court.
Those incurred by the respondents. So it is ordered.

Moran, Pres., Paras, Jaranilla Fair and Paul, JJ., Concur.

Good luck powz

Você também pode gostar