G.R. No. L‑2822
Date: October 30, 1906

FACTS
– Plaintiffs‑appellants Valentin Santos et al. filed a complaint.
– Defendants‑appellees Leoniza Yturralde et al. filed a demurrer, asserting that an earlier action between the same parties and for the same cause was pending.
– The demurrer was supported by affidavits, but the complaint itself made no reference to the alleged prior action.
– The trial court sustained the demurrer and dismissed the complaint.

ISSUE
Whether a demurrer may be sustained on a ground that does not appear on the face of the complaint, i.e., the existence of another pending action, under Sections 91 and 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s judgment.
– Section 91 enumerates grounds for a demurrer; however, Section 92 requires that any ground not appearing on the face of the complaint be raised only by answer, not by demurrer.
– The trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer on a ground absent from the complaint and known only through the defendants’ affidavits.
– Admissions made by the plaintiff in written arguments do not cure a pleading defect; the plaintiff must amend the complaint to introduce new facts.

The judgment of dismissal is set aside; no special condemnation of costs. Judgment to be entered after ten days and the record returned for proper proceedings.

Concurrence: Justices Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Johnson, and Tracey.
Dissent: Justice Willard (did not sit).