GR L 39047; (April, 1985) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-39047 April 30, 1985
ALBERTO PASCUA, CRISPINA PASCUA, SOTERA PASCUA, and EDUARDO MOLINA, petitioners, vs. HON. ALFREDO C. FLORENDO, CFI of Cagayan, CLEMENTE CASTRO, and JULIANA O. CASTRO, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners, heirs of Jordan Pascua, filed a complaint for reconveyance with damages against respondents, spouses Clemente and Juliana Castro. They alleged that their brother, Martin Pascua, fraudulently sold the entire family land, inherited by all five siblings, to the Castros in 1951, forging the signatures of petitioners Alberto and Sotera Pascua on the deed. The respondents were declared in default for failure to file an answer. Petitioners then presented evidence ex-parte.
The trial court, after evaluating the ex-parte evidence, found that fraud was indeed committed by Martin Pascua, as he could only validly sell his one-fifth share. However, the court noted petitioners’ own testimony that they had been deprived of the land’s fruits for over twenty years. It concluded that petitioners must have discovered the fraudulent sale much earlier, as it was inconceivable they would not know of the respondents’ possession and cultivation for two decades. Thus, the court dismissed the complaint on the ground of prescription.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint on the ground of prescription after having previously denied a motion to dismiss on the same ground and after declaring the defendants in default.
RULING
The Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s dismissal. The denial of a motion to dismiss is merely interlocutory and does not preclude the court from later dismissing the case on the same ground if the evidence presented during trial warrants it. The ground of prescription, while not apparent from the face of the complaint, became evident upon the presentation of the petitioners’ own evidence.
Regarding the default judgment, the Court clarified that a declaration of default does not result in an automatic victory for the plaintiff. The court must still require the plaintiff to present competent evidence and render a judgment based on law and the evidence presented. The defendant, though in default, is not deemed to have admitted the legal sufficiency of the plaintiff’s cause of action. The court has the duty to ensure that the evidence supports the relief sought. In this case, the petitioners’ own evidence established that their action for reconveyance based on fraud had prescribed, as it was filed 22 years after the 1951 sale, well beyond the four-year prescriptive period from discovery of the fraud. The trial court correctly found that from the evidence, the only legal judgment warranted was dismissal. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.