G.R. No. L-22713 July 26, 1966
TERESITA M. CONSUL, plaintiff and appellee, vs. JESUS L. CONSUL, defendant and appellant.

FACTS

The case originated from an action for support filed by the wife, Teresita M. Consul, against her husband, Jesus L. Consul. The pivotal facts, as stated in the defendant’s petition for relief, are: On September 21, 1963, the court issued an order declaring the defendant in default, and on September 26, 1963, a judgment by default was rendered ordering him to pay P400.00 monthly support effective July 1963. The defendant learned of this default judgment only on September 30, 1963, upon receiving a notice of an order denying his motion to dismiss. He received copies of the default order and judgment on October 4, 1963. The defendant claimed the default was taken through mistake and/or fraud because the parties had been attempting to amicably settle their differences. They had filed a joint petition for judgment based on an agreement for dissolution of conjugal partnership, separation of property, custody, and support. Although the court denied this petition and a subsequent motion to amend the complaint to embody the agreement, the parties proceeded to file the joint petition as a new case. The defendant then filed a motion to dismiss the complaint based on the amicable settlement, which plaintiff did not oppose. However, the court denied this motion, noting the defendant had already been declared in default and a decision rendered. The defendant asserted a meritorious defense based on the amicable settlement, which provided different terms for support (starting at P200.00 monthly, rising to P400.00, then reducing back to P200.00 upon full payment of a P35,000 liquidation amount), and denied plaintiff’s allegations for separate support. The trial court denied the defendant’s petition for relief solely on the ground that it was “not sufficient in form and substance” because it was not accompanied by a separate affidavit of merits, even though the petition itself was verified and contained the factual recitals and merits of the defense.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in denying the appellant’s petition for relief on the ground that it was not accompanied by a separate affidavit of merits, despite the petition being verified and incorporating the facts constituting the defense.

RULING

Yes, the trial court erred. The Supreme Court set aside the orders denying relief and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Court held that while there was a lapse in the literal observance of the rule requiring a separate affidavit of merits, the verified petition for relief, which incorporated the facts showing the fraud, mistake, and the merits of the defense, constituted a substantial compliance with the rule. The oath in the verified petition elevated it to the same category as a separate affidavit. The absence of a separate affidavit was a defect of form, not substance, and requiring one under the circumstances would be to compel the unnecessary. The Court emphasized the rules should be liberally construed to promote just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of proceedings. The verified petition was deemed a sufficient “equivalent” to a separate affidavit of merits, following prior jurisprudence.