GR L 5682; (May, 1954) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-5682; May 26, 1954
Anastacio N. Abad, plaintiff-appellant, vs. Candida Carganillo Vda. de Yance, et al., defendants-appellees.
FACTS
On August 30, 1950, plaintiff Anastacio N. Abad filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan against defendants Candida Carganillo Vda. de Yance, et al. He prayed that a deed of sale with right of repurchase dated December 10, 1931, be declared a mere equitable mortgage, that defendants vacate the land, and that they deliver to him his share of the harvests or their monetary equivalent. He filed an amended complaint on October 20, 1950. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on November 4, 1950, on the grounds of prior judgment and the statute of limitations. The court overruled this motion on December 4, 1950, and ordered defendants to answer. When defendants failed to answer, the court declared them in default on January 17, 1951. Meanwhile, on January 26, 1951, the court received notice that defendants had filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals seeking to annul the order of default and have the amended complaint dismissed. The trial court suspended proceedings. The Court of Appeals dismissed the certiorari petition on December 5, 1951, because defendants had not filed a motion for reconsideration of the trial court’s order denying their motion to dismiss. The Court of Appeals, in its decision, included a statement that “The nature of the contract entered into between Abad and Yance has thus already been determined. Abad cannot take back his admission and attack this contract asking that it be interpreted as one of mortgage.” Relying on this statement, the defendants filed motions in the trial court seeking dismissal of the case on the ground of res judicata. On February 25, 1952, the trial court issued an order dismissing the case, citing the aforementioned pronouncement of the Court of Appeals. Plaintiff appealed this order.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court correctly dismissed the case based on the pronouncement in the Court of Appeals’ decision dismissing the certiorari petition.
RULING
No. The trial court erred in dismissing the case. The Court of Appeals’ dismissal of the certiorari petition was based solely on the defendants’ procedural lapse—their failure to move for reconsideration of the trial court’s order denying their motion to dismiss. The statement regarding the nature of the contract between Abad and Yance was purely an obiter dictum, unnecessary to the resolution of the certiorari petition. If that statement were the ratio decidendi, the Court of Appeals would have granted the petition and ordered the dismissal of the amended complaint. The matter pertaining to the nature of the contract is a proper subject for an answer in the main case. The appealed order is set aside and the case is remanded to the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan for further proceedings, starting with an order requiring the defendants to file an answer.