Eugenio Bravo vs Ciriano Barreras

Eugenio Bravo vs Ciriano Barreras

February 16, 1953

Justice Angelo Bautista

Facts:

June 8, 1946, Eugnio Bravo (plaintiff) sold to Ciriano Barreras (defendant) a parcel of land for P200 with the right to repurchase it within five years from the date of sale.

September 14 and 15, 1950, the palintiff attempted to exercise his right of repurchase by tendering to the defendant the payment of the sum of P200 as agreed upon, but said defendant refused to accept the payment without any valid reason.

In view of said refusal, plaintiff deposited said sum of P200 with the court, and filed the present action as required by the Civil Code.

In his answer, the defendant avers that, "the trouble between the parties is the fact that the plaintiff wants to get from the defendant a parcel of land distinct from what the said plaintiff delivered to the defendant after the execution of the pacto de retro contract."

After holding a pre-trial at which both parties were heard, the court rendered an order of the following tenor:

At today's pre-trial the parties have agreed that the land sought to be repurchased is also the subject-matter of another litigation between the same parties in case which is now before the Court of Appeals on appeal. The herein defendant does not deny the right of the plaintiff to repurchase the property but maintain that it is now impossible to execute the deed of repurchase because the identity of the property is still undecided and will not be decided until after the Court of Appeals has finally disposed of the case before it.

In as much as it will take about two more years before said appeal could be decided and the plaintiff, on the other hand, has already made a consignation of the purchase price with the clerk of court which amply protects his right to repurchase the property, the court hereby order the dismissal of this case without cost and without prejudice.

Issue:

Whether or not the consignation is proper

Held:

The ground on which the court on its own accord dismissed this case after hearing the parties on a pre-trial has no legal basis nor justification. Such action is only contrary to the Rules of Court. But it impairs a right which the law grants to the plaintiff in connection with his right to repurchase the property in litigation. Under section 3, Rule 30, of the Rule, an action can only be dismissed upon motion of a defendant or upon the initiative of the court, (1) when plaintiff fails to appear at the time of trial, (2) when plaintiff fails to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time, and (3) when he fails to comply with any rule or order of the court. In other cases, the case can only be dismissed upon petition of the plaintiff (section 1, Rule 30). The grounds given by the court in its order of dismissal is not one of those recognized by the Rules of Court.