GR L 3251; (August, 1950) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-3251; August 24, 1950
FELICIANO JOVER LEDESMA, petitioner, vs. BUEN MORALES and RAFAEL AMPARO, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, respondents.
FACTS
On April 17, 1944, respondent Buen Morales obtained a loan from petitioner Feliciano Jover Ledesma in the amount of P2,023.86 in Japanese military notes, secured by a real estate mortgage. The loan was payable within three years without interest, with a stipulation that the mortgagee could not be compelled to accept payment before the expiration of two years, and that in case of foreclosure, the mortgagor would pay an additional 15% of the amount due as attorney’s fees. After the war, Morales filed a petition for declaratory relief in the Court of First Instance of Manila, seeking a judicial declaration on the equivalent value in postwar currency of the loan amount in Japanese military notes, to facilitate payment. Ledesma, in his original answer, claimed the debt should be paid in full in genuine Philippine currency. Later, he sought to file an amended answer including a counterclaim for the principal amount plus attorney’s fees and for foreclosure of the mortgage. The trial judge denied admission of the amended answer, ruling that the counterclaim was outside the subject of the declaratory relief petition. Ledesma filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, arguing the trial judge abused his discretion.
ISSUE
Whether a counterclaim may be filed and entertained in a special civil action for declaratory relief.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the trial court and directed the admission of the amended answer including the counterclaim. The Court held that the provisions of the Rules of Court, particularly Rule 10 on counterclaims, apply to special civil actions for declaratory relief under Rule 65, which states that preceding rules apply if not inconsistent. A counterclaim arising out of the same transaction as the petition for declaratory relief is permissible, and it may be set up in an amended answer if its omission from the original answer was due to oversight, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. The counterclaim here, especially regarding attorney’s fees, was intimately connected to the mortgage contract in question and, if not interposed, could be barred as a compulsory counterclaim. Courts should be liberal in admitting such counterclaims to avoid multiplicity of suits.
AI Generated by Armztrong.