alonso v villamor

1
Eladio Alonso v Tomas Villamor, et al. GR No. L-2352, July 26, 1910 Facts: Villamor, et al, members of the municipal board of Placer, took the image of St. Vicente and other things from the church for proper preservation and to collect revenues. Fr. Alonso filed a case to recover possession. Municipal board’s defense: priest is not real party in interest because statue was bought using the people’s money. Lower court in favor of plaintiff priest. Municipal board appealed to SC asking for a new trial because Fr. Alonso is not the real party in interest, but the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church Issue: WoN the error in indicating the proper party in interest merits a new trial Held: No. No one has been misled by the error in the name of the party plaintiff. If there is a new trial, the complaint, answer, and defense will still be the same. Only the name of the plaintiff would constitute the difference between the old and new trial. Name change is not enough for a new trial! PROCEDURAL LANG NAMAN YAN EH. There is nothing sacred about processes or pleadings, their forms or contents. Their sole purpose is to facilitate the application of justice to the rival claims of contending parties. They were created, not to hinder and delay, but to facilitate and promote, the administration of justice. They do not constitute the thing itself, which courts are always striving to secure to litigants. They are designed as the means best adapted to obtain that thing. In other words, they are a means to an end. When they lose the character of the one and become the other, the administration of justice is at fault and courts are correspondingly remiss in the performance of their obvious duty. The error in this case is purely technical. To take advantage of it for other purposes than to cure it, does not appeal to a fair sense of justice. ... Technicality, when it deserts its proper office as an aid to justice and comes its great hindrance and chief enemy, deserves scant consideration from courts. There should be no vested rights in technicalities. Substitute “Roman Catholic Apostolic Church” in place of Eladio Alonso as party plaintiff, but decision is affirmed. Villamor et al. are unsuccessful.

Upload: gelatin528

Post on 16-Nov-2015

66 views

Category:

Documents


2 download

DESCRIPTION

Civil Procedure case digest

TRANSCRIPT

Eladio Alonso v Tomas Villamor, et al.GR No. L-2352, July 26, 1910

Facts: Villamor, et al, members of the municipal board of Placer, took the image of St. Vicente and other things from the church for proper preservation and to collect revenues. Fr. Alonso filed a case to recover possession.

Municipal boards defense: priest is not real party in interest because statue was bought using the peoples money.

Lower court in favor of plaintiff priest. Municipal board appealed to SC asking for a new trial because Fr. Alonso is not the real party in interest, but the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church

Issue: WoN the error in indicating the proper party in interest merits a new trial

Held: No. No one has been misled by the error in the name of the party plaintiff. If there is a new trial, the complaint, answer, and defense will still be the same. Only the name of the plaintiff would constitute the difference between the old and new trial. Name change is not enough for a new trial!

PROCEDURAL LANG NAMAN YAN EH. There is nothing sacred about processes or pleadings, their forms or contents. Their sole purpose is to facilitate the application of justice to the rival claims of contending parties. They were created, not to hinder and delay, but to facilitate and promote, the administration of justice. They do not constitute the thing itself, which courts are always striving to secure to litigants. They are designed as the means best adapted to obtain that thing. In other words, they are a means to an end. When they lose the character of the one and become the other, the administration of justice is at fault and courts are correspondingly remiss in the performance of their obvious duty.

The error in this case is purely technical. To take advantage of it for other purposes than to cure it, does not appeal to a fair sense of justice. ... Technicality, when it deserts its proper office as an aid to justice and comes its great hindrance and chief enemy, deserves scant consideration from courts. There should be no vested rights in technicalities.

Substitute Roman Catholic Apostolic Church in place of Eladio Alonso as party plaintiff, but decision is affirmed. Villamor et al. are unsuccessful.