GR L 2841; (May, 1951) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-2841; May 28, 1951
PINDAÑGAN AGRICULTURAL CO., plaintiff-appellant, vs. LUDOVICO ESTRADA, defendant-appellee.
FACTS
On December 11, 1947, Pindañgan Agricultural Co. filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan against Ludovico Estrada to recover the sum of P958.02. This amount consisted of P576.02 in arrears for rents (canons) on leased parcels of land for the agricultural years 1937 to 1945, and P382.00 for rents due after liberation for the agricultural years 1945-46, 1946-47, and 1947-48. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the claim was unenforceable under Executive Order No. 32, the Debt Moratorium Proclamation. The lower court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint. The plaintiff appealed, assigning three errors, including that the lower court erred in holding all obligations covered by the Moratorium, and that the Moratorium had been lifted by Republic Act No. 342 enacted on July 29, 1948, which should apply as a motion for reconsideration was pending at that time.
ISSUE
1. Whether the lower court erred in admitting the motion to dismiss instead of declaring the defendant in default.
2. Whether the lower court erred in holding that all obligations in the action, including post-liberation rents, were covered by the Debt Moratorium.
3. Whether Republic Act No. 342 , which lifted the Moratorium, applied retroactively to this case.
RULING
1. The lower court did not err in admitting the motion to dismiss. Under the Rules of Court, the court has discretion to permit an answer or other pleading to be presented after the time fixed, and a motion to dismiss may be filed within the time for pleading.
2. The lower court erred in holding that all obligations were covered by the Moratorium. The obligation to pay rents for the agricultural years 1945-46, 1946-47, and 1947-48 (amounting to P382.00) incurred after liberation was not covered by Executive Orders No. 25 and 32.
3. Republic Act No. 342 , which lifted the Moratorium, does not have retroactive effect. Therefore, it did not apply to this case, as the complaint was filed on December 11, 1947, before the Act’s enactment. The appellee’s claim that the lower court lost jurisdiction due to the Judiciary Act ( Act No. 296 ) was not invoked and was considered untenable.
The Supreme Court reversed the order of dismissal concerning the claim for rents from 1945 to 1948 (P382.00) and remanded the case for further proceedings. It affirmed the dismissal of the complaint as to the claim for rents from 1937 to 1945 (P576.02), without prejudice to the appellant’s right to file a new complaint in the proper courts.