EN BANC[G.R. No. L-20089. February 26, 1965.]

BEATRIZ P. WASSMER, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FRANCISCO X.VELEZ, defendant-appellant.

R E S O L U T I O N

BENGZON, J.P., J p:Defendant-appellant has led a motion for reconsideration of this Court's

decision promulgated December 26, 1964. The only point movant raises is thealleged validity of his adavit of merits attached to his petition for relief in thelower court.

The adavit of merits in question states "that he (defendant) has a good and validdefense, his failure to marry plainti as scheduled having been due to a fortuitousevent and/or circumstances beyond his control." The movant contends that this isnot a mere opinion or conclusion but positive and categorical statement of a validdefense; that it stated there are fortuitous events, i.e., fortuitous facts, whichdefendant puts forward as valid defense. The previous rulings of this Court, movantfurther contends, held invalid only affidavits of merits that disclosed no defense.The rulings of this court require adavits of merits to state not mere conclusions oropinions but facts (Vaswani vs. Tarachand Bros., L-15800, Dec. 29, 1960). Anaffidavit is a statement under oath of facts. Defendant's adavit of merits stated nofacts, but merely an inference that defendant's failure was due to fortuitous eventsunder circumstances beyond his control. This is a conclusion of fact, no a fact.An adavit of merits is required to avoid waste of the court's time if the defenseturns out to be ineective (Vda. de Yulo vs. Chua Chuco, 48 O.G. 554, 555).Statements too vague or merely general do not as movant admits serve theafore-stated purpose.Defendant's adavit of merits provides no means for the court to see the merits ofhis defense and determine whether reopening the case would be worth its time.Said adavit revealed nothing of the "event" or "circumstances" constituting thedefense. It stated, in substance, only defendant's opinion that the event was"fortuitous" and that the circumstances were "beyond his control"; and hisconclusion that his failure to marry plainti on schedule was "due to" them. Thecourt, not the defendant, should form such opinions and draw such conclusions onthe basis of facts provided in the adavit. As it is, defendant's adavit leaves the

court guessing as to the facts.Conformably to previous rulings of this Court, therefore, the adavit of meritsaforementioned is not valid. To repeat, it states a conclusion of facts, not factsthemselves; it leaves the court guessing as to the facts; it provides no basis fordetermining the probable merits of the defense as a jurisdiction for reopening thecase.WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is hereby denied. So ordered.Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon,Regala, Makalintal and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.