TOPIC: RULE 6

FAUSTINO GOJO, petitioner appellant, vs. SEGUNDO GOYALA and ANTONINA

ALMOGUERA, respondents appellees G.R. No. L-26768, October 30, 1970
Doctrine: It is now settled that a plaintiff who fails or chooses not to answer a compulsory
counterclaim may not be declared in default, principally because the issues raised in the
counterclaim are deemed automatically joined by the allegations of the complaint.
Facts:
Respondents Goyala sold to petitioner-appellant Gojo by a “Deed of Pacto De Retro
Sale” a certain parcel of Agricultural land having an area of approximately 2 and ½ hectares for
P750.00, the repurchase to made within one year. It also appears that from said deed that on July
4, 1951 the vendee paid another P100.00 as addition to the purchase price. About 10 years after
execution of the said document, or on April 12, 1961 the vendee filed with the CFI of Sorsogon
the present case against the vendors by way of a petition for consolidation of ownership of the
land described and involved in the Pacto de Retro sale. In his petition, the vendee, herein
appellant alleged that the date of repurchase which was on May 26, 1952 already expired under
the terms and condition of the agreement, the ownership over the land involved had become
consolidated in him. Respondent Goyala filed an opposition as an answer to the petition. He
alleged that his wife Antonina Almoguera had died in the year 1959 and denied the allegation in
the petition regarding the Pacto de Retro sale. According to him, on May 26, 1951 respondents
obtained a cash loan of P750.00 from petitioner payable in one year with interest that only on
July 26, 1951 Dolores Goyala (Daughter) obtained from petitioner the sum of P50.00 to be added
and credited to the account of the respondents on Aug 25, 1951. Dolores also secured P10.00 to
be added and credited to the account of Respondents making a total of P810.00 and to guarantee
payment of said loan Respondents executed a mortgage in favor of petitioner on a parcel of
coconut land described in Annex A of the petition hence although the deed was drawn in a form
of a Pacto de Retro sale it was in fact a mere mortgage to secure the payment of the original loan
of P750.00 together with the additional amount making it a total of P810.00 payable within one
year without interest. He also alleged that in the evening of May 26, 1952 he and his wife went
to the house of the petitioner and tendered the sum of P810.00 to pay the debt but petitioner
refused to receive the same and cancel the mortgage. Appellees also reiterated the foregoing
allegations by way of counterclaim.
On December 1, 1962, counsel for respondent filed a manifestation informing the trial
court that named defendant Antonina was already dead and pray that plaintiff submit an amended
complaint substituting one of the defendants Antonina now deceased her successors in interest as
party defendants within the reglementary period. Subsequently Goyala on Jan 26, 1963 filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of plaintiffs failure to submit or neglect to submit
a amended complaint (within 43 days). The motion was opposed by the appellant, but the trial
court ruled in favor of the appellees and dismissed the complaint without prejudice. Appellee
then filed a motion to declare appellant in default in respect of said appellees counterclaim which
was also granted a favorable decision on appellees counterclaim. Appellant appealed with the
CA which upon finding pure questions of law certified it to this Court.
Issue:
 Whether or not the plaintiff can be declared in default for not answering compulsory
counterclaim
Held:
No, Plaintiff cannot be declared in default.
It is now settled that a plaintiff who fails to or chooses not to answer a compulsory
counterclaim may not be declared in default, principally because the issues raised in the counter
claim are deemed automatically joined by the allegations of the complaint. In the present case
there is no doubt that appellants counterclaim is compulsory in as much as it arises out of or is
necessarily connected with the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the
complaint. In this case, the complaint alleged that the right of the appellee to repurchase expired
and asked for consolidation of the property on the other hand the appellants counterclaim was for
reformation of deed claiming that it was only a mortgage thus the counterclaim was clearly
inconsistent with and directly controverted the whole theory and basic allegations of the
complaint. In consequence, appellants complaint stood as the answer to apellees counterclaim,
hence the trial court erred in declaring plaintiff appellant in default.