G.R. No.

L-26768 October 30, 1970 CASE #17

FAUSTNO GO!O, "et#t#o$er-%""e&&%$t, '(.
COUNTERCLA)S
SEGUN*O GO+ALA %$, ANTONNA AL)OGUERA, re("o$,e$t(-%""e&&ee(.
FACTS-
1. May 26 1951 - Respondent Goyaa together wth hs now deceased wfe Antonna
Amoguera, who was aso named respondent or defendant n the compant or petton n
the court beow, sod to pettoner by a "Deed of Pacto de Retro Sae" a certan parce of
agrcutura and wth 1 year to repurchase.
2. |uy 4, 1951 - The vendee (pettoner) pad another P100.00 as addton to the purchase
prce.
3. Apr 12, 1961 - After 10 years of executon, the vendee fed wth the Court of Frst
Instance of Sorsogon the present case aganst the vendors by way of a petton for
consodaton of ownershp of the and descrbed and nvoved n the "Deed of Pacto de
Retro Sae." In hs petton, the pettoner aeged, that the date for repurchase, May 26,
1952, havng expred and the vendors not havng been abe to repurchase the same under
the terms and condtons of the agreement, the ownershp over the and nvoved had
become consodated n hm; and that for the purpose of recordng n the Regstry of
Property the sad consodaton of ownershp, t was necessary that a |udca order be
ssued to that effect and accordngy prayed for such an order.
4. May 26, 1961 - Respondent Segundo Goyaa fed an opposton. He aeged that hs wfe
Antonna Amoguera had ded n the year 1959 and dened the aegaton n the petton
regardng the pacto de retro sae. He mentoned that on May 26, 1951, the respondents
obtaned a cash oad of P750.00 from the pettoner payabe n one year wthout nterest.
5. And that Doores Goyaa, daughter of respondent, obtaned: (1) 50 pesos to be added and
credted to respondents account (2) 10 pesos aso to respondents account. So the
amount of tota oan of the respondents s 810. And to cover such oan, respondents
executed a mortgage n favor of the pettoner a parce of and to guarantee the oan of
810. And even f the deed was n the form of pacto de retro sae, ther rea ntenton was to
secure the payment of the orgna oan of 750 pus the addtona amount, makng t 810,
payabe wthn 1 year. He aso aeged that he and hs wfe tendered the amount of 810 to
pettoner but the atter refused and does not want to cance the document of mortgage
6. December 1, 1962 - Goyaa fed a manfestaton nformng the tra court that the named
defendant (respondent) Antonna Amoguera was aready dead,
7. |anuary 26, 1963 - appeee Goyaa fed a moton to dsmss the compant or petton on
the ground that notwthstandng the apse of 43 days after appeant's recept of a copy of
the above-quoted order of the tra court, sad appeant had faed and negected to
submt the amended compant requred of hm. The moton was opposed by appeant.
The tra court dsmssed t.
8. |uy 10, 1963- Respondent fed a moton to decare appeant n defaut n respect of sad
appeee's countercam, contaned n hs answer (opposton) to the dsmssed compant
petton) of appeant. Ths was granted by the tra court and ordered the respondent to
submt hs evdence before the Cerk of Court.
9. November 15, 1963 - The Cerk of Court receved the evdence of appeee n respect of hs
countercam and, thereafter, the tra court rendered |udgment n favor of the respondent.
10.Pettoner appeaed to the CA (rasng the ssues beow). CA, havng found the ssue beng
purey questons of aw, certfed the case to the SC.
SSUES- WON LOWER COURT ERRED IN DECLARING PLAINTIFF IN DEFAULT WITH RESPECT TO
DEFENDANT'S COUNTERCLAIM
WON THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DEPUTIZING OR COMMISSIONING THE CLERK OF COURT TO
RECEIVE THE EVIDENCE OF THE DEFENDANT SEGUNDO GOYALA
.EL*- 1. Yes. The ower court erred n rung the ssue.
SC hed: The frst assgnment of error of appeant s we taken. It s now setted that a pantff
who fas or chooses not to answer a compusory countercam may not be decared n defaut,
prncpay because the ssues rased n the countercam are deemed automatcay |oned by the
aegatons of the compant. In the nstant case, there can be no doubt that appeant's
countercam was a compusory one n as much as t arses out of or s necessary connected
wth transacton or occurrence that s the sub|ect matter of the compant; the compant aeged
that the rght of appeee to repurchase the property n queston had aready expred and asked
for an order of consodaton; on the other hand, appeant's countercam was for reformaton of
the deed camng that t was ony a mortgage. Thus the countercam was ceary nconsstent
wth and drecty controverted; the whoe theory and basc aegatons of the compant. In
consequence, appeant's compant stood as the answer to appeee's countercam; hence, the
ncorrectness of the tra court's order decarng the appeant n defaut n regard to sad
countercam s evdent.
The tra court commtted reversbe error n orderng the dsmssa of the compant. It s true
that under Secton 3 of Rue 17, a compant may be dsmssed for faure to prosecute f the
pantff fas to compy wth an order of the court, but t s obvous that the sad provson cannot
appy when the order supposedy gnored s a vod one, as n ths case. Here, the tra court
ordered pettoner to amend the compant ony because t was nformed that one of the
defendants had ded, the court drectng that the pantff shoud name the hers of the deceased
as defendants n eu of sad deceased. Such an order runs counter to the rung of ths Court n
Caseas vs. Resaes, et a. 2 whch s squarey appcabe to the Stuaton heren obtanng. In
that case, We hed:.
When certan of the partes to Cv Case No. 261 ded and due notce thereof was gven to the
tra court, t devoved on the sad court to order, not the amendment of the compant, but the
appearance of the ega representatves of the deceased n accordance wth the procedure and
manner outned n Rue 3, Secton 17 of the Rues of Court, whch provde:.
"SECTION 17. Death of party. - After a party des and the cam s not thereby
extngushed, the court sha order, upon proper notce, the ega representatve of the deceased
to appear and to be substtuted for the deceased, wthn a perod of thrty (30) days, or wthn
such tme as may be granted. If the ega representatve fas to appear wthn sad tme, the
court may order the opposng party to procure the appontment of a ega representatve of the
deceased wthn a tme to be specfed by the court, and the representatve sha mmedatey
appear for and on behaf of the nterest of the deceased.
In ne wth the prncpe underyng Sec. 2 of Rue 17, t s not proper to dsmss a compant
when a compusory countercam has been peaded by defendant. The reason s obvous. Under
the cted provson, the rght of the pantff to move for the dsmssa of an acton after the
defendant has fed hs answer s quafed by the cause provdng that: "If a countercam has
been peaded by a defendant pror to the servce upon hm of the pantff's moton to dsmss,
the acton sha not be dsmssed aganst the defendant's ob|ecton uness the countercam can
reman pendng for ndependent ad|udcaton by the court." Wth ths mtaton, the power of the
court to dsmss the compant upon moton of pantff, whch s usuay wthout pre|udce, s not
purey dscretonary.3 The purpose s to avod mutpcty of suts over the same matter whch
woud necessary enta unnecessary expense and, what s worse, possbty of confct and
nconsstency n the resouton of the same questons. The same consderatons woud obtan, f
the defendant were the one to ask for dsmssa. The best nterests of |ustce requre that
confctng cams regardng the same matter shoud be decded n one snge proceedng.
Dsmssng the compant wthout pre|udce, |ust ke the tra court dd, w not prevent the
undesrabe mutpcaton of suts and reventaton of the same ssues n the subsequent acton
that may be fed by vrtue of the reservaton made n the dsputed order of dsmssa.
Beng that the decson on the 1
st
ssue, answerng the second ssue s unnecessary.
Case remanded to ower court.