EUFEMIA VDA. DE AGATEP V.
ROBERTA RODRIGUEZ AND o Applying the rule in this case, Agatep, upon amending the
NATALIA AGUINALDO VDA. DE LIM
Facts:
o This case is about a dispute involving a parcel of land, which
was previously owned by Natalia Vda. De Lim.
o To secure the loan obtained by Lim from PNB, she mortgaged
the subject property to the said bank.
o Upon failure of Lim to pay her loan, PNB foreclosed the
property and sold it at public auction, to which it was the auction,
PNB was the highest bidder.
o So, Lim’s name was cancelled in the TCT of the property and a
new one was issued in the name of PNB.
o Meanwhile, while the mortgage was in effect, Lim sold the
subject property to Agatep.
o Then on July 1992, PNB included the subject lot as part of its
acquired assets for sale. And a year later, the subject lot was sold to
Roberta Rodriguez, Agatep’s daughter and a new TCT was issued in
her name.
o Upon knowing this, Agatep filed a Complaint for reconveyance
and/or damages for the RTC against Rodrguez, et al.
o The complaint was later amended to include PNB as party-
defendant.
o RTC dismissed the amended complaint for failure of Agatep to
file her Pre-Trial Brief.
ISSUES:
1. WON another pre-trial and another pre-trial brief is required
when the complaint is amended to implead another defendant.
YES.
2. WON the case should be dismissed for failure of Agatep to file
her pre-trial brief. YES.
3. WON the court should decide a case consistent with those
agreed upon during the pre-trial conference. NO.
RULINGS:
1. YES, the Court in this case, ruled that another pre-trial and pre-trial
brief is required.
o As a general rule, when a pre-trial has been terminated or
completed, a second pre-trial cannot be granted and that the remedy
instead is to proceed to trial, except when the parties themselves
voluntarily agreed that the case be set anew for a pre-trial.
o In this case, the Court presented another exception and that is
when there exist additional or separate causes of action alleged in an
amended complaint.
complaint to include PNB as party-defendant, she had a separate
cause of action against PNB.
o A separate cause of action necessarily means additional cause
of action. Moreover, the defenses adopted by PNB are completely
different from the defenses of Lim and Rodriguez, demanding a
separate determination of the matters enumerated under Section 6,
Rule 18 of the Rules of Court insofar as PNB and Agatep are
concerned.
o Therefore the Court ruled that the dismissal of the amended
complaint against PNB for failure of petitioner to file her pre-trial
brief by the RTC was correct.
(PNB must prove that it lawfully foreclosured and acquired)
(LIM&Rodriguez: must prove that the mortgage is binding on
Agatep)
2. YES. The case should be dismissed for failure of Agatep to file a pre-
trial brief
o In the present case, the Court pointed out the absence of both
Agatep and her counsel during the scheduled pre-trial conference of
the amended complaint impleading PNB. Under the Rules, such
absence is an additional ground to dismiss the action against PNB.
o Whether an order of dismissal should be maintained under the
circumstances of a particular case or whether it should be set aside
depends on the sound discretion of the trial court. Considering the
circumstances established on record in the instant case, the Court
finds no cogent reason to set aside the order of the RTC dismissing
the complaint of petitioner against PNB.
3. No, the Court ruled that a pre-trial order is not meant to be a detailed
catalogue of each and every issue that is to be or may be taken up during
the trial.
o Issues that are impliedly included therein or may be inferred
therefrom by necessary implication are as much important in the
pre-trial order as those that are expressly stipulated.
o In this case, issues enumerated in the Pre-Trial Order of the
RTC would show that the complete and proper resolution of these
issues would necessarily include all other matters relevant in
determining whether Agatep is the lawful owner of the subject lot
and thus, entitled to reconveyance.
o It would be illogical not to discuss the whether the mortgage
contract between Lim and PNB is binding on Agatep and her
husband or whether PNB there was lawful foreclosure and
acquisition the subject property as the resolution of these issues
would determine whether there were no impediments in Agatep and
her husband in acquiring the subject lot.