You are on page 1of 1

Gojo v Goyala

Oct 1970 | J. Barredo  Gojo now claims that he should not be held in default since
a) the said counterclaim "falls within the category of compulsory
 May 26, 1951 - Goyala and his wife Antonina Almoguera sold to Gojo by a "Deed counterclaim" which does not call for an independent answer as the
of Pacto de Retro Sale" a certain parcel of agricultural land. complaint already denies its material allegations;
o The repurchase period is one year. b) the dismissal of the complaint in this case without prejudice carried with
 10 years after the execution of the sale or on April 12, 1961, Gojo filed with CFI it the dismissal of the said counterclaim.
Sorsogon a petition for consolidation of ownership of the land described and
involved in the "Deed of Pacto de Retro Sale” against Goyala. W/N GOJO WAS PROPERLY HELD TO BE IN DEFAULT – NO
o Given that the 1-year period expired without the vendors repurchasing
the land under the terms and conditions of the agreement, Gojo contends
that the ownership over the land involved had become consolidated in  A plaintiff who fails or chooses not to answer a compulsory counterclaim may not
him. be declared in default, principally because the issues raised in the counterclaim
o For the purpose of recording in the Registry of Property the said are deemed automatically joined by the allegations of the complaint.
consolidation of ownership, it was necessary that a judicial order be  ITC: Goyala’s counterclaim was a compulsory one in as much as it arises out of or
issued to that effect and accordingly prayed for such an order. is necessarily connected with transaction or occurrence that is the subject
 Goyala filed an opposition or answer to the petition. matter of the complaint;
o Alleged that Antonina had died in the year 1959 and denied the allegation o The complaint alleged that the right of Goyala to repurchase the property
in the petition regarding the pacto de retro sale. in question had already expired and asked for an order of consolidation;
o He contended that what actually occurred was a loan agreement wherein while Goyala’s counterclaim was for reformation of the deed claiming that
he and his daughter obtained a cash load from Gojo. To guarantee the it was only a mortgage.
payment of the said loan, they executed a mortgage in favor of the o Thus the counterclaim was clearly inconsistent with and directly
petitioner on a parcel of coconut land. The true and real intention of the controverted; the whole theory and basic allegations of the complaint.
parties thereto was that the same was a mere mortgage to secure the  Further the dismissal of Gojo’s complaint was improper.
payment of the loan. o It is true that under Section 3 of Rule 17, a complaint may be dismissed
o He further alleged that they tried to tender the payment of the debt, but for failure to prosecute if the plaintiff fails to comply with an order of the
Gojo refused to accept it and cancel the document of mortgage. court, but it is obvious that the said provision cannot apply when the order
 It then filed a counterclaim asking the court: supposedly ignored is a void one, as in this case.
o To order Gojo to receive the Php 810 tendered in full settlement of the o The order of the court to amend the complaint and to name the heirs of
debts the deceased as defendants in lieu of said deceased runs counter to the
o To declare the document to be a mortgage and not a pacto de retro sale, ruling of this Court in Caseñas vs. Resales, et al: When certain of the
o To order the said document cancelled parties to Civil Case No. 261 died and due notice thereof was given to the
o To order Gojo to pay the sum of P1,800.00 per annum beginning May 26, trial court, it devolved on the said court to order, not the amendment of
1951 until the final termination of this case as the reasonable monetary the complaint, but the appearance of the legal representatives of the
value of the products for the said property deceased in accordance with the procedure and manner outlined in Rule
o In case the court finds the said instrument to be a true pacto de retro sale, 3, Section 17 of the Rules of Court.
to order the execution of a deed of resale or repurchase of said property  Also, it is not proper to dismiss a complaint when a compulsory counterclaim has
 Gojo was then required to submit an amended Complaint substituting therein for been pleaded by defendant.
one of the defendants, Antonina Almoguera, now deceased her successors in o The right of the plaintiff to move for the dismissal of an action after the
interest as party defendants, within the reglementary period. defendant has filed his answer is qualified by the clause providing that:
o Goyala filed a MTD on the ground that Gojo failed and neglected to "If a counterclaim has been pleaded by a defendant prior to the service
submit the amended complaint required of him, despite 43 days that upon him of the plaintiff's motion to dismiss, the action shall not be
have elapsed  DISMISSED COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE dismissed against the defendant's objection unless the counterclaim can
 Goyala then filed a motion to declare Gojo in default in respect to his counterclaim remain pending for independent adjudication by the court."
failure to answer within the reglementary period  GRANTED AND DECLARED o The purpose is to avoid multiplicity of suits over the same matter which
GOJO IN DEFAULT; Goyala was allowed to submit his evidence before the would necessarily entail unnecessary expense and, what is worse,
Clerk of Court possibility of conflict and inconsistency in the resolution of the same
 The trial court then rendered a favorable judgment on the counterclaim. questions.
o Pacto de retro is in fact an equitable mortgage  Goyala allowed to
redeem the property and ordered Gojo to withdraw the P 810 in full
settlement of the loan and deliver and restore possession to Goyala .

You might also like