SPS. VICENTE DIONISIO AND ANITA DIONISIO vs. WILFREDO LINSANGAN. G.R. No. 178159. March 2, 2011 (Digested)

SPS. VICENTE DIONISIO AND ANITA DIONISIO
vs.
WILFREDO LINSANGAN

G.R. No. 178159. March 2, 2011

ABAD, J.:

Civil Procedure

The case is about a) amendments in the complaint that do not alter the cause of action.

Issue:

Whether or not the Dionisios’ amendment of their complaint effectively changed their cause of action from one of ejectment to one of recovery of possession; and

Held:

An amended complaint that changes the plaintiff’s cause of action is technically a new complaint. Consequently, the action is deemed filed on the date of the filing of such amended pleading, not on the date of the filing of its original version. Thus, the statute of limitation resumes its run until it is arrested by the filing of the amended pleading. The Court acknowledges, however, that an amendment which does not alter the cause of action but merely supplements or amplifies the facts previously alleged, does not affect the reckoning date of filing based on the original complaint. The cause of action, unchanged, is not barred by the statute of limitations that expired after the filing of the original complaint.⁷

In the case at bar, The amended complaint has essentially identical allegations. The only new ones are that the Dionisios allowed Emiliana, Romualdo’s widow to stay "out of their kindness, tolerance, and generosity;" that they went to the land in April 2002, after deciding to occupy it, to tell Emiliana of their plan; that Wilfredo cannot deny that Cruz was the previous registered owner and that he sold the land to the Dionisios; and that a person occupying another’s land by the latter’s tolerance or permission, without contract, is bound by an implied promise to leave upon demand, failing which a summary action for ejectment is the proper remedy.

To determine if an amendment introduces a different cause of action, the test is whether such amendment now requires the defendant to answer for a liability or obligation which is completely different from that stated in the original complaint.⁸ Here, both the original and the amended complaint required Wilfredo to defend his possession based on the allegation that he had stayed on the land after Emiliana left out of the owner’s mere tolerance and that the latter had demanded that he leave. Indeed, Wilfredo did not find the need to file a new answer.