Alonso vs. Villamor

A court may, on appeal, amend the pleadings and proceedings to substitute the real party in interest where the action was brought by a person without personal interest in the cause of action, provided the defect is merely formal and no substantial rights are prejudiced. The substitution does not change the identity of the parties where the plaintiff has consistently asserted that he prosecuted the case not for himself but for another, and where no one has been misled by the error in the name of the party plaintiff.

The plaintiff, Eladio Alonso, was the Roman Catholic priest in charge of the church, its appurtenances, and contents in the municipality of Placer. The defendants were members of the municipal board of that municipality. The ownership of the church and its appurtenances, including the convent and cemetery, had previously been litigated before this Court in an action entitled "The Roman Catholic Apostolic Church against the municipality of Placer," where the Court decided that the property belonged to the Roman Catholic Church, not the municipality. The same question was also discussed and decided in the cases of Barlin vs. Ramirez and The Municipality of Ponce vs. Roman Catholic Apostolic Church in Porto Rico.

The plaintiff, Eladio Alonso, was the priest in charge of a Roman Catholic Church located in the municipality of Placer, together with its appurtenances and contents. On December 11, 1901, the defendants, who were members of the municipal board of Placer, addressed a letter to the plaintiff stating that they had received an order from the provincial fiscal declaring that the cemeteries, convents, and other buildings erected on land belonging to the town at the expense of the town and preserved by it belong to the town, and that the municipality was obligated to administer them and collect the revenues therefrom. The letter also notified the plaintiff that the image of St. Vicente in the church, having been donated to the people, was the property of the people, and that the alms given by devotees must be turned into the municipal treasury. The defendants demanded the key of the alms box of the said image.

On December 13, 1901, the defendants took possession of the church and its appurtenances, and also of all of the personal property contained therein. The plaintiff, as priest of the church and the person in charge thereof, protested against the occupation, but his protests received no consideration, and he was summarily removed from possession of the church, its appurtenances, and contents.

The only defense presented by the defendants, except the claim that the plaintiff was not the real party in interest, was that the church and other buildings had been erected by funds voluntarily contributed by the people of that municipality, and that the articles within the church had been purchased with funds raised in like manner, and that, therefore, the municipality was the owner thereof. The question of ownership of the church and its appurtenances had been previously before this Court in an action entitled "The Roman Catholic Apostolic Church against the municipality of Placer," where substantially the same facts were presented, and the Court decided that the claim of the defendants was not well founded and that the property belonged to the Roman Catholic Church.

The Court made a careful examination of the record and evidence and found no doubt that the property sued for was, at the time it was taken by the defendants, the property of the Roman Catholic Church, and that the seizure of the same and occupation of the church and its appurtenances by the defendants were wrongful and illegal. The Court was also convinced that the conclusions of the court below as to the value of the articles taken and of the rent of the church for the time of its illegal occupation were correct and proper. While some objection was made on appeal that the value of the articles taken and of the rent had not been proved by competent evidence, no objection to the introduction of the evidence of value was made at the trial, and the Court could not consider that question raised for the first time on appeal.

• Real Party in Interest: The defendants asserted that the court below erred in permitting the action to be brought and continued in the name of the plaintiff instead of in the name of the bishop of the diocese within which the church was located, or in the name of the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church, as the real party in interest.
• Ownership by the Municipality: The defendants defended on the ground that the church and other buildings had been erected by funds voluntarily contributed by the people of that municipality, and that the articles within the church had been purchased with funds raised in like manner, and that, therefore, the municipality was the owner thereof.
• Insufficient Evidence of Value: The defendants objected on appeal that the value of the articles taken and of the rent of the church and its appurtenances had not been proved by competent evidence.

N/A — The decision does not recount the appellee's arguments in detail.

• Real Party in Interest: Whether the action could be brought and continued in the name of the plaintiff priest instead of in the name of the bishop of the diocese or the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church as the real party in interest.
• Ownership of the Church Property: Whether the church and its appurtenances and contents belonged to the Roman Catholic Church or to the municipality by reason of the contributions by the people of the land and funds with which the buildings were constructed or repaired.
• Sufficiency of Evidence of Value: Whether the value of the articles taken and the rent of the church and its appurtenances were proved by competent evidence.

• Real Party in Interest: Yes, the action could be maintained, but the proceedings were ordered amended to substitute the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church as party plaintiff. The plaintiff was not the real party in interest under Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but the Court had full power under Section 110 and Section 503 to amend the pleadings and proceedings to substitute the real party in interest, the defect being merely formal.
• Ownership of the Church Property: No. The property belonged to the Roman Catholic Church, and the seizure of the same and occupation of the church and its appurtenances by the defendants were wrongful and illegal, as previously decided in "The Roman Catholic Apostolic Church against the municipality of Placer," Barlin vs. Ramirez, and The Municipality of Ponce vs. Roman Catholic Apostolic Church in Porto Rico.
• Sufficiency of Evidence of Value: No. The objection to the evidence of value could not be considered because no objection to the introduction of the evidence of value was made at the trial, and the question was raised for the first time on appeal.

• Real Party in Interest: The Court acknowledged that the bishop of the diocese or the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church itself is the real party in interest, and that the plaintiff personally had no interest in the cause of action. Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires that every action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest. However, Section 110 allows the court to amend any pleading or proceeding at any stage of the action by adding or striking out the name of any party, and Section 503 provides that no judgment shall be reversed on formal or technical grounds. The Court held that the substitution of the name of the bishop of the diocese, or the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church, for that of Padre Alonso, was not in reality the substitution of one identity for another, but was simply to make the form express the substance. The substance appeared all through the proceedings, and no one was deceived as to whose interests were at stake. The defect was in mere form, and since no one had been misled by the error in the name of the party plaintiff, sending the case back for amendment and new trial would be unjustified. The Court emphasized that a litigation is not a game of technicalities, and that technicality, when it becomes the great hindrance and chief enemy of justice, deserves scant consideration from courts.
• Ownership of the Church Property: The Court relied on its previous decision in "The Roman Catholic Apostolic Church against the municipality of Placer," where substantially the same facts were presented and the Court decided that the claim of the defendants was not well founded and that the property belonged to the Roman Catholic Church. The same question was discussed and decided in Barlin vs. Ramirez and The Municipality of Ponce vs. Roman Catholic Apostolic Church in Porto Rico. The Court found no doubt that the property sued for was, at the time it was taken by the defendants, the property of the Roman Catholic Church, and that the seizure and occupation by the defendants were wrongful and illegal.
• Sufficiency of Evidence of Value: The Court noted that while some objection was made on appeal that the value of the articles taken and of the rent of the church and its appurtenances had not been proved by competent evidence, no objection to the introduction of the evidence of value was made at the trial, and the Court could not consider that question raised for the first time on appeal.

• Real Party in Interest — Every action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest, as required by Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In this case, the plaintiff priest was not the real party in interest, but the Court ordered the substitution of the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church as party plaintiff.
• Formal vs. Substantial Defects in Pleadings — A defect in the name of the party plaintiff is merely formal where the substance of the claim is clearly evident throughout the proceedings and no one has been misled. The substitution of the real party in interest does not constitute a change in the identity of the parties where the plaintiff has consistently asserted that he prosecuted the case not for himself but for another.
• Technicality as an Aid to Justice — Technicality, when it deserts its proper office as an aid to justice and becomes its great hindrance and chief enemy, deserves scant consideration from courts. A litigation is not a game of technicalities in which one, more deeply schooled and skilled in the subtle art of movement and position, entraps and destroys the other.

• "The substitution, then, of the name of the bishop of the diocese, or the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church, for that of Padre Alonso, as party plaintiff, is not in reality the substitution of one identity for another, of one party for another, but is simply to make the form express the substance." — This passage articulates the Court's reasoning that the amendment to substitute the real party in interest was merely formal, not substantial, because the substance of the claim was evident throughout the proceedings.
• "A litigation is not a game of technicalities in which one, more deeply schooled and skilled in the subtle art of movement and position, entraps and destroys the other. It is, rather, a contest in which each contending party fully and fairly lays before the court the facts in issue and then, brushing aside as wholly trivial and indecisive all imperfections of form and technicalities of procedure, asks that justice be done upon the merits." — This passage states the Court's philosophy on the role of technicalities in litigation, emphasizing that procedural rules are a means to an end, not an end in themselves.
• "Technicality, when it deserts its proper office as an aid to justice and becomes its great hindrance and chief enemy, deserves scant consideration from courts. There should be no vested rights in technicalities." — This passage captures the Court's holding that technical defects in pleadings should not be used to defeat substantial rights where no prejudice has been shown.

• The Roman Catholic Apostolic Church vs. The Municipality of Placer, 11 Phil. Rep., 315 — Controlling precedent on the question of ownership of the church and its appurtenances, where the Court decided that the property belonged to the Roman Catholic Church and not the municipality.
• Barlin vs. Ramirez, 7 Phil. Rep., 41 — Followed on the same question of ownership of church property under Spanish law.
• The Municipality of Ponce vs. Roman Catholic Apostolic Church in Porto Rico, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep., 737, 6 Off. Gaz., 1213 — Followed on the same question of ownership of church property.
• McKeighan vs. Hopkins, 19 Neb., 33 — Cited as authority for the power of courts to amend pleadings to substitute the real party in interest.
• Dixon vs. Dixon, 19 Ia., 512 — Cited as authority for the power of courts to amend pleadings to substitute the real party in interest.
• Hodges vs. Kimball, 49 Ia., 577 — Cited as authority for the power of courts to amend pleadings to substitute the real party in interest.
• Sanger vs. Newton, 134 Mass., 308 — Cited as authority for the power of courts to amend pleadings to substitute the real party in interest.
• George vs. Reed, 101 Mass., 378 — Cited as authority for the power of courts to amend pleadings to substitute the real party in interest.
• Bowden vs. Burnham, 59 Fed. Rep., 752 — Cited as authority for the power of courts to amend pleadings to substitute the real party in interest.
• Phipps and Co. vs. Hurlburt, 70 Fed. Rep., 202 — Cited as authority for the power of courts to amend pleadings to substitute the real party in interest.
• McDonal vs. State, 101 Fed. Rep., 171 — Cited as authority for the power of courts to amend pleadings to substitute the real party in interest.
• Morford vs. Diffenbocker, 20 N. W., 600 — Cited as authority for the power of courts to amend pleadings to substitute the real party in interest.
• Costelo vs. Crowell, 134 Mass., 280 — Cited as authority for the power of courts to amend pleadings to substitute the real party in interest.
• Whitaker vs. Pope, 2 Woods, 463, Fed. Cas. no. 17528 — Cited as authority for the power of courts to amend pleadings to substitute the real party in interest.
• Miller vs. Pollock, 99 Pa. St., 202 — Cited as authority for the power of courts to amend pleadings to substitute the real party in interest.
• Wilson vs. Presbyterian Church, 56 Ga., 554 — Cited as authority for the power of courts to amend pleadings to substitute the real party in interest.
• Wood vs. Circuit Judge, 84 Mich., 521 — Cited as authority for the power of courts to amend pleadings to substitute the real party in interest.
• Insurance Co. vs. Mueller, 77 Ill., 22 — Cited as authority for the power of courts to amend pleadings to substitute the real party in interest.
• Farman vs. Doyle, 128 Mich., 696 — Cited as authority for the power of courts to amend pleadings to substitute the real party in interest.
• Union Bank vs. Mott, 19 How. Pr., 114 — Cited as authority for the power of courts to amend pleadings to substitute the real party in interest.
• R. R. Co. vs. Gibson, 4 Ohio St., 145 — Cited as authority for the power of courts to amend pleadings to substitute the real party in interest.
• Hume vs. Kelly, 28 Oreg., 398 — Cited as authority for the power of courts to amend pleadings to substitute the real party in interest.

• Section 114, Code of Civil Procedure — Requires that every action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest. The Court found that the plaintiff priest was not the real party in interest, as he personally had no interest in the cause of action.
• Section 110, Code of Civil Procedure — Allows the court to amend any pleading or proceeding at any stage of the action by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, so that the actual merits of the controversy may speedily be determined without regard to technicalities. The Court relied on this provision to order the substitution of the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church as party plaintiff.
• Section 503, Code of Civil Procedure — Provides that no judgment shall be reversed on formal or technical grounds, or for such error as has not prejudiced the real rights of the excepting party. The Court cited this provision in support of its decision not to reverse the judgment on the technical ground of the misnamed plaintiff.

Arellano, C. J., Torres, Johnson, and Trent, JJ., concurred.

N/A — No dissenting opinions are noted in the case text.