This is an appeal from a denial of a motion from reconsideration of an order of the Court  of  First Instance  of Zambales, dismissing  appellant's complaint.  The appeal has been certified to this  Court by the  Court of Appeals because the  question involved is purely legal.

The complaint in question was for the recovery of two parcels of  land which plaintiff-appellant  alleged  he shad purchased from defendant subject to redemption within a specified  period, but  which  notwithstanding  defendant's failure to redeem within the said "period and  despite the fact that absolute title had already passed to plaintiff, defendant,  refused  to deliver despite  repeated  demands. Answering the  complaint, defendant  admitted  the sale a retro but alleged as a defense that the lands in question had already been redeemed as evidenced by  receipt signed  by plaintiff acknowledging payment made for that purpose. Defendant also  set up a claim for damages "by reason of the unwarranted,  unjustified  and malicious filing  of this suit."  

For failure of plantiff or his attorney to appear at the trial notwithstanding  due notice,  the  court  ordered the complaint dismissed and authorized the clerk of  court  to receive defendant's evidence.   Three days later,  plaintiff moved for a reconsideration of the order of dismissal, alleging  that the failure of himself and  his  attorney  to . appear at the trial was due to the fact that the attorney's clerk, who received the notice of hearing,  forgot to notify them thereof.   The motion for reconsideration having been denied, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from the order  of denial, and this is the appeal that is now before this Court.  , But the record  on appeal hiss also included, by order of the .court, the decision subsequently rendered on defendant's claim, finding that the lands in question had  already been redeemed by defendant, declaring  plaintiff's  suit unjustly filed and awarding to defendant moral damages in the sum of P200 and attorney's fee in the sum of P250, in addition to the cost of suit.

We see no merit in the appeal.   The motion for reconsideration, though supported  by the affidavit  of the clerk to the effect that, through inadvertence, she forgot to bring to the knowledge of attorney and client the  notice of hearing that she had received, is not accompanied by an  affidavit or  merit, that  is, a  sworn declaration  that plaintiff has a good and valid cause of action against the defendant, notwithstanding the latter's defense that he had already  redeemed the lands in question.  Even supposing therefore, that the failure of the plaintiff and his attorney to appear at the hearing  was really due, as they alleged, "to excusable error or accident," still plaintiff would not be entitled to a reopening of the ease in the  absence  of  a reasonable  assurance supported by  proper affidavit that he had  a just and valid cause, which, if proved, would entitle him to a judgment in his favor.  (Remedios M. Vda. de Miranda vs. Urbano Legaspi  et al.,  92 Phil.,  290,  48  Off. Gaz., 4819.)   In the circumstances, the  lower court did not commit any  error or  abuse  its  discretion  in denying a reopening.

Wherefore,  the  order appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the appellant.

Paras,  C. J. Bengzon, Padilla,  Montemayor, Jugo, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L. and Endencia, JJ., concur.