Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 158 views

    9 Siasoco Vs CA, 303 SCRA 186

    Uploaded by

    Cali Ey
    1) Siacoco offered to sell land to INC but they failed to agree on terms. Over a year later, Siacoco made a final offer to INC. INC's counsel replied accepting but objected to undervaluation. 2) Private respondent filed suit against Siacoco and Carissa. Siacoco argued improper venue and lack of capacity. Private respondent later bought the land from Carissa. 3) Private respondent amended the complaint, dropping Carissa as a defendant and changing the case to one for damages only. Siacoco argued the complaint cannot be amended without leave of court since an answer was filed. 4) The Court of Appeals ruled that while amendment as a matter of right no

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    9 Siasoco Vs CA, 303 SCRA 186

    Uploaded by

    Cali Ey
    158 views1 page
    1) Siacoco offered to sell land to INC but they failed to agree on terms. Over a year later, Siacoco made a final offer to INC. INC's counsel replied accepting but objected to undervaluation. 2) Private respondent filed suit against Siacoco and Carissa. Siacoco argued improper venue and lack of capacity. Private respondent later bought the land from Carissa. 3) Private respondent amended the complaint, dropping Carissa as a defendant and changing the case to one for damages only. Siacoco argued the complaint cannot be amended without leave of court since an answer was filed. 4) The Court of Appeals ruled that while amendment as a matter of right no

    Original Title

    9 Siasoco vs CA, 303 SCRA 186

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Siacoco offered to sell land to INC but they failed to agree on terms. Over a year later, Siacoco made a final offer to INC. INC's counsel replied accepting but objected to undervaluation. 2) Private respondent filed suit against Siacoco and Carissa. Siacoco argued improper venue and lack of capacity. Private respondent later bought the land from Carissa. 3) Private respondent amended the complaint, dropping Carissa as a defendant and changing the case to one for damages only. Siacoco argued the complaint cannot be amended without leave of court since an answer was filed. 4) The Court of Appeals ruled that while amendment as a matter of right no

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    158 views1 page

    9 Siasoco Vs CA, 303 SCRA 186

    Uploaded by

    Cali Ey
    1) Siacoco offered to sell land to INC but they failed to agree on terms. Over a year later, Siacoco made a final offer to INC. INC's counsel replied accepting but objected to undervaluation. 2) Private respondent filed suit against Siacoco and Carissa. Siacoco argued improper venue and lack of capacity. Private respondent later bought the land from Carissa. 3) Private respondent amended the complaint, dropping Carissa as a defendant and changing the case to one for damages only. Siacoco argued the complaint cannot be amended without leave of court since an answer was filed. 4) The Court of Appeals ruled that while amendment as a matter of right no

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Siacoco vs Court of Appeals

    G.R. No. 132753, February 15, 1999

    Facts:
    Petitioners offered up for sale their 9 parcels of land in Rizal. Iglesia ni Cristo (INC) negotiated with the petitioners, but
    the parties failed to agree on the terms of the purchase. More than a year later, both parties revived their discussion. In a letter
    dated Dec. 16,1996, petitioners made a final offer to the INC. The latter’s counsel sent a reply, stating that the offer was
    accepted, but that the INC was “not amenable to your proposal to an undervaluation of the total consideration.” In their letter
    dated Jan. 8, 1997, petitioners claimed that the INC had not really accepted the offer, adding that, prior to their receipt of reply
    on Dec. 24,1996, they had already “contracted” with Carissa Homes and Development & Properties (Carissa) for sale of the said
    properties” due to the absence of any response to their offer from INC.

    Private respondent filed an action for specific performance and damages against petitioners and Carrisa Homes.
    Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of improper venue and lack of capacity to sue. Carissa Home then filed its
    answer to the complaint. Pending resolution of petitioner’s motion to dismiss, private respondent negotiated with Carrisa
    which culminated in the purchase of the subject properties of Carissa homes by private respondent.

    Private respondent filed an Amended Complaint, dropping Carissa Homes as one of the defendants and changing the
    nature of the case to a mere case for damages. Petitioners filed a Motion to Strike Out Amended Complaint, contending that
    the complaint cannot be amended without leave of court, since a responsive pleading has been filed.

    The first assailed order denying petitioners’ Motion to Strike Out Amended Complaint was rendered. Later, petitioners
    filed a Motion for Suspension of proceeding pending the resolution by the respondent court of the Motion to Dismiss earlier
    filed.

    The second assailed order denying petitioners’ Motion to Suspend Proceeding was rendered.

    CA rule that although private respondent could no longer amend its original complaint as a matter of right, it was not
    precluded from doing so with leave of court

    Issue:
    Whether the amended complaint may be admitted

    Ruling:
    Yes. The amended complaint may be admitted

    Section 3, Rule 10 of the Rules of Court, provides that after a responsive pleading has been filed, an amendment may
    be rejected when the defense is substantially altered. Such amendment does not only prejudice the rights of the defendant; it
    also delays the action. It is clear that plaintiff (herein private respondent) can amend its complaint once, as a matter of right,
    before a responsive-pleading is filed.

    Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the fact that Carissa had already filed its Answer did not bar private
    respondent from amending its original Complaint once, as a matter of right, against herein petitioners. Indeed, where some but
    not all defendants have answered, plaintiffs may amend their Complaint once, as a matter of right, in respect to claims
    asserted solely against the non-answering defendants, but not as to claims asserted against the other defendants.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy