Supreme Court decision · Remedial Law

Magatinge v. La Electricista

G.R. No. 1128 · Promulgated April 29, 1903 · Ponente: Ladd

In brief

This case is about the incompatibility of filing a demurrer and an answer simultaneously, holding that the answer supersedes the demurrer.

Demurrer, Answer, Pleadings, Motion to Strike, Supersede

Related cases

G.R. No. 1265 Paynaga v. Wolfe (Previous decision in Remedial Law)
G.R. No. 1072 Abello v. Monasterio (Next decision in Remedial Law)

Full text

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 1128 April 29, 1903

CHIYE MAGATINGE, petitioner,
vs.
LA ELECTRICISTA, respondent.

Federick G. Waite for petitioner.
Jose Robles and Davis and Cohn for respondent.

LADD, J.:

The defendant demurred to the complaint, and while the demurrer was still pending filed an answer. These two pleadings can not stand together. The effect of the filing of the answer was to supersede the demurrer. The motion to strike out the demurrer should be granted. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Cooper, Willard and Mapa, JJ., concur. McDonough, J., did not sit in this case.