G.R. No. L-2004; May 24, 1949
PABLO COTAOCO, petitioner, vs. RAFAEL DINGLASAN, JOSE L. UY, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Pablo Cotaoco filed an action to recover real property and monetary claims. After he presented his evidence and rested his case, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, alleging he was not the real party in interest. The trial court denied this motion. Cotaoco then filed a motion for judgment on the merits based solely on his evidence, which the court also denied. Cotaoco petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to compel the trial judge to decide the case based only on the plaintiff’s evidence and to restrain the court from receiving the defendants’ evidence.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court committed a grave abuse of discretion or error in denying the plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the merits and in allowing the defendants to present their evidence after the denial of their motion to dismiss.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court denied the petition. The cases cited by the petitioner (where judgment was rendered for the plaintiff after denial of a defendant’s motion to dismiss) are distinguishable because in those cases, the defendant appealed the denial, creating a risk of multiple suits. Here, no appeal was taken from the order denying the motion to dismiss. The Court emphasized that before a case leaves the trial court, it has at least discretionary power to allow the defendant to present evidence. This practice avoids potential delays, as a higher court’s reversal could remand the case for further proceedings. The motion to dismiss raised a collateral issue (plaintiff’s capacity) and did not address the main defense attacking the validity of the deed, which required the defendants’ evidence for proper resolution. The trial court’s action was in line with judicial policy for the speedy disposition of cases.

AI Generated by Armztrong.