G.R. No. 26251 , February 7, 1927
GREGORIA TORRES VDA. DE NERY, plaintiff-appellant, vs. JACINTO TOMACRUZ, defendant-appellee.

FACTS

Gregoria Torres Vda. de Nery (appellant) filed an action against Jacinto Tomacruz (appellee). Initially, her first amended complaint sought the recovery of a parcel of land (*reivindicacion*). After trial but before judgment, she attempted to file a second amended complaint, shifting her principal cause of action to rescission of a contract. The trial court denied the admission of this second amended complaint. The court proceeded to dismiss her complaint based on the first amended complaint, awarded damages to Tomacruz on his counterclaim, and dissolved a previously issued injunction and levy.

The factual background involves a tract of public land originally leased by the government to Claude B. Guittard. Guittard transferred his rights to Pedro Nery (appellant’s husband), who later sold them to Tomacruz under a contract (Exhibit 1-A) approved by government officials. The contract stipulated that Tomacruz would pay Nery P10,000 within three years from government approval, which was set to expire on March 21, 1927.

ISSUE

1. Did the trial court commit reversible error in refusing to admit the plaintiff’s second amended complaint?
2. Was the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint and award of damages to the defendant correct?

RULING

1. On the denial of the second amended complaint: NO, the trial court did not commit reversible error. The Supreme Court held that amendments to pleadings, while liberally allowed under the Code of Civil Procedure to serve justice, are subject to the trial court’s sound discretion. This discretion is greatest early in the proceedings and becomes stricter as the case progresses. The Court found no abuse of discretion because the appellant attempted to completely change her theory of the case and the nature of her cause of action (from recovery of property to rescission of contract) *after* the trial had already concluded. Allowing such a fundamental change at that late stage would be prejudicial. The Supreme Court also declined to allow the amendment itself, as it constituted an entirely new cause of action.

2. On the merits of the case and award of damages: YES, the trial court’s judgment was correct. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s findings. Based on the documented chain of transfers with government approval, the appellant had no valid cause of action for the recovery of the land (*reivindicacion*) against Tomacruz, who was the rightful holder of the leasehold rights. The Court noted that if the appellant had any remedy, it was for rescission of the contract, not recovery of the land. Furthermore, the Court found that the trial court’s award of P931.30 in damages to Tomacruz for the improvident levy (attachment) was supported by the record.

The Supreme Court also made two ancillary observations: (a) the appellant violated court rules by not citing specific pages of the record in her brief, though the Court reviewed the record nonetheless; and (b) the present decision would not bar a future separate action for rescission of the contract.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION: The judgment of the trial court was AFFIRMED, with costs against the appellant.