G.R. No. L-20089 February 26, 1965
Beatriz P. Wassmer, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Francisco X. Velex, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Defendant-appellant Francisco X. Velex filed a motion for reconsideration of the Supreme Court’s decision dated December 26, 1964. The sole point raised in the motion pertains to the alleged validity of his affidavit of merits, which was attached to his petition for relief filed in the lower court. The affidavit stated “that he (defendant) has a good and valid defense, his failure to marry plaintiff as scheduled having been due to a fortuitous event and/or circumstances beyond his control.” The movant contended that this statement was a positive and categorical assertion of a valid defense, citing fortuitous events as facts constituting the defense, and argued that previous rulings only invalidated affidavits that disclosed no defense at all.

ISSUE

Whether the affidavit of merits submitted by the defendant-appellant is valid, as it states a conclusion of fact rather than the facts themselves.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the motion for reconsideration, ruling that the affidavit of merits is not valid. The Court held that affidavits of merits must state facts, not mere conclusions or opinions, as required by its previous rulings (e.g., Vaswani vs. Tarachand Bros.). The defendant’s affidavit merely presented an inference or conclusion—that his failure to marry was due to a fortuitous event or circumstances beyond his control—without disclosing the specific facts of the event or circumstances. Such a vague and general statement does not allow the court to assess the merits of the defense or determine if reopening the case is justified, thereby failing to serve the purpose of avoiding a waste of judicial time. The affidavit left the court guessing as to the underlying facts, and it is the court’s role, not the defendant’s, to form opinions and draw conclusions based on facts provided.