G.R. No. L-5412
ANGEL ORTIZ, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RAMON GARCIA, defendant-appellant.
February 12, 1910

FACTS:
Angel Ortiz (plaintiff-appellee) commenced an action to foreclose a mortgage executed by Ramon Garcia (defendant-appellant) to Ortiz’s assignor. The trial was set for October 22, 1908. Garcia, who appeared in person, was sick on that day and informed the court, leading to an adjournment to November 2, 1908. Garcia claimed he did not receive notice of the adjournment until after the rescheduled date. Consequently, a default judgment of foreclosure was rendered against him on November 6, 1908.

Upon receiving notice of the judgment, Garcia filed a motion for a new trial, stating he was “the victim of an accident which ordinary prudence would not have been able to avoid, having been sick at the time of the trial and having for that reason been prejudiced in my legal rights in the case; therefore, the judgment is contrary to law.”

The Supreme Court examined three main points: (1) whether Garcia’s motion for a new trial was sufficient under Section 497, subdivision 2, of the Code of Civil Procedure to allow a review of the evidence; (2) whether the trial court’s findings of fact, which merely stated that the allegations in the complaint were proven, were sufficient to support the decision; and (3) whether the complaint itself stated facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The complaint alleged the parties’ identities, Garcia’s indebtedness, the mortgage on specific property, the transfer of the debt and mortgage to Ortiz, the mortgage’s due date, and the non-payment.

ISSUE:
1. Was the defendant’s motion for a new trial sufficient, under Section 497, subdivision 2, of the Code of Civil Procedure, to allow the Supreme Court to review the evidence?
2. Were the trial court’s findings of fact, which referenced the complaint’s allegations as proven, sufficient to support the decision?
3. Did the plaintiff’s complaint state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for foreclosure?

RULING:
1. No. The Supreme Court held that the defendant’s motion for a new trial was not sufficient under Section 497, subdivision 2, of the Code of Civil Procedure. This section requires a motion for new trial to be based on the ground “that the evidence was insufficient to justify the decision.” Garcia’s motion, stating the judgment was “contrary to law” due to his sickness, did not raise the issue of the sufficiency of the evidence. Therefore, the Supreme Court could not review the evidence presented during the trial.
2. Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court’s finding that “the facts alleged in the complaint were proved” was a sufficient finding of fact to support the decision. The Court clarified that findings may refer to the pleadings for the facts found if such reference is sufficiently distinct and if the facts are sufficiently stated in the pleadings.
3. Yes. The Supreme Court found that the complaint stated facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. In a foreclosure action, it is not necessary to detail every fact required by law to make the mortgage valid. An allegation that the defendant executed and delivered a mortgage on specified property sufficiently alleges its validity and all necessary acts. Only ultimate facts, not evidentiary facts, need to be pleaded.

The judgment of the court below was affirmed with costs against the appellant.