This is an action to  recover the amount of P1,800  as damages and the  amount  of  P200  as  attorney's  fees filed before  the Municipal  Court  of the City of Manila. Defendants are Benito Macrohon,  Sheriff of Quezon City, and two corporations organized under the laws  of the Philippines.   To the complaint are attached copies of two annexes on which the action is based  and which contain the alleged conditional  sale  in favor of plaintiff  of the properties mentioned in the complaint.

The complaint alleges that plaintiff is entitled to the possession  and ownership  of certain  personal  properties listed therein  by virtue of a conditional  sale executed by Catalina de Leon and Leuterio  Limcaco, copies of which are Annexes A and A-1; that on August 23, 1956, defendants,  conspiring together, levied upon said  properties and sold them  at  public  auction  in spite of the third-party complaint filed by  plaintiff with sheriff Macrohon; that the sale was  carried out in view  of  an indemnity  bond executed in behalf of said sheriff  by his  co-defendants binding themselves to indemnify him  for the damages he may suffer  as a consequence of the sale; that because of the sale of the properties as  (above-mentioned, plaintiff suffered damages in  the amount of  P1,800.

One of the  defendants filed a motion to dismiss on the ground  that the complaint  fails  to state a cause of action, and despite the opposition  of  plaintiff,  the same was granted, the court dismissing the complaint without costs.  When the  case  was taken to the court  of  first instance on appeal, the  same motion to dismiss was reiterated by defendants.   Plaintiff again opposed this motion, but despite its  opposition, the  lower  court  again dismissed the case for the  same reason that it fails to state a cause of action against defendants.  This appeal was taken to us for the reason that only questions of law are involved.

We find no  merit in the appeal.  The complaint alleges that plaintiff  is the owner of certain personal  properties listed therein by virtue of certain conditional sale executed by  Catalina de Leon and Leuterio Limcaco in  its favor, and in  reliance  thereon it invokes two  agreement which are embodied  in Annexes A and A-l.  And because said properties  were levied  upon  and sold at public  auction by  defendants despite the third-party complaint  it had filed  with  the sheriff,  plaintiff claims  that it suffered damages in the amount  of P1,800.  It now seeks  to collect said  damages  under the indemnity  bond executed in favor of the sheriff by his  co-defendants.  It  turned out however, as found by the trial court, that said agreements do not represent any conditional sale of the properties claimed by the plaintiff but merely refer to a chattel mortgage or pledge coving properties which are distinct and different from those listed in the  complaint.  If from the very fact of  the complaint, as supplemented by  its annexes, plaintiff  is  not the  owner,  nor entitled to the properties it claims to have been levied  upon and sold at public auction  by the defendants and for which  it now seeks indemnity, it is evident that the complaint does not give plaintiff any right of action against defendants.  The trial  court  therefore acted properly in dismissing the complaint.

But it is claimed that the trial court erred in considering the annexes in acting on the motion to dismiss for it could have  merely confined its scrutiny to the  allegations of the complaint for if the  latter were  considered independently of  those annexes  we would find that the plaintiff has a good  cause  of action because  it is alleged therein that it is the owner of the articles which were improvidently sold by  defendants to its prejudice.  This pretense is untenable for one cannot separate the complaint  from its annexes since it clearly  appears in said complaint that the claim of  plaintiff  to be  the owner of the properties in question is predicated on said annexes  which are  alleged to contain agreements  of conditional  sale. However, such claim was found to be untrue  for as already stated said annexes merely embody a  contract of  chattel  mortgage or pledge of properties distinct and different from those listed in the complaint.

It  is likewise  claimed  that the  lower court erred  in dismissing the  complaint outright for it could have merely ordered plaintiff to amend the same  to  make it conform to the contents of the annexes or otherwise reconcile the discrepancies, if any, and require defendants  to answer the complaint as  held by  the  Supreme Court in the case of  World Wide Insurance & Surety Co., Inc. vs. Gonzalo L.  Manuel,  98 Phil., 46;  51  Off. Gaz.,   [12] 6214.  This claim is also untenable for it would be futile to make the complaint conform to what appears in the annexes because the  latter  embody  merely  certain  contracts  of chattel mortgage or pledge which would at most give plaintiff a lien on the properties in question.  But the great flaw we find in this claim lies in the fact that  said annexes refer to properties which are different from those listed in the complaint.   The case above alluded to is inapplicable for if in that case the complaint and the document annexed thereto were reconciled  it was because the alleged discrepancy appears explained in the very body of the complaint.

Wherefore, the order  appealed from is affirmed,  with costs against appellant.

Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes,  A.,  Labrador, Concepcion, and Endencia, JJ., concur.