Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 74 views

    Alba vs. Malapajo

    Uploaded by

    MAC
    The Supreme Court ruled that the respondents' counterclaim for reimbursement of a loan if the deed of sale was declared void, was compulsory, not permissive. A compulsory counterclaim arises from the same transaction or occurrence as the opposing party's claim. The counterclaim and main claim involved largely the same facts and law, would be barred by res judicata if not raised together, and involved the same evidence. As compulsory, the counterclaim did not require docket fees or a certification against forum shopping to be under the court's jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Alba vs. Malapajo

    Uploaded by

    MAC
    74 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that the respondents' counterclaim for reimbursement of a loan if the deed of sale was declared void, was compulsory, not permissive. A compulsory counterclaim arises from the same transaction or occurrence as the opposing party's claim. The counterclaim and main claim involved largely the same facts and law, would be barred by res judicata if not raised together, and involved the same evidence. As compulsory, the counterclaim did not require docket fees or a certification against forum shopping to be under the court's jurisdiction.

    Original Description:

    Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the respondents' counterclaim for reimbursement of a loan if the deed of sale was declared void, was compulsory, not permissive. A compulsory counterclaim arises from the same transaction or occurrence as the opposing party's claim. The counterclaim and main claim involved largely the same facts and law, would be barred by res judicata if not raised together, and involved the same evidence. As compulsory, the counterclaim did not require docket fees or a certification against forum shopping to be under the court's jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    74 views1 page

    Alba vs. Malapajo

    Uploaded by

    MAC
    The Supreme Court ruled that the respondents' counterclaim for reimbursement of a loan if the deed of sale was declared void, was compulsory, not permissive. A compulsory counterclaim arises from the same transaction or occurrence as the opposing party's claim. The counterclaim and main claim involved largely the same facts and law, would be barred by res judicata if not raised together, and involved the same evidence. As compulsory, the counterclaim did not require docket fees or a certification against forum shopping to be under the court's jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Alba vs.

    Malapajo
    G.R. No. 198752 January 13, 2016

    Issue: Whether or not respondents’ counterclaim, i.e., reimbursement of the loan obtained from them in
    case the deed of absolute sale is declared null and void on the ground of forgery, is permissive in nature
    which requires the payment of docket fees and a certification against forum shopping for the trial court to
    acquire jurisdiction over the same.

    Held: No.

    A counterclaim is any claim which a defending party may have against an opposing party. A
    compulsory counterclaim is one which, being cognizable by the regular courts of justice, arises out of or is
    connected with the transaction or occurrence constituting the subject matter of the opposing party's claim
    and does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the court cannot acquire
    jurisdiction. Such a counterclaim must be within the jurisdiction of the court both as to the amount and the
    nature thereof, except that in an original action before the Regional Trial Court, necessarily connected with
    the subject matter of the opposing party's claim or even where there is such a connection, the Court has
    no jurisdiction to entertain the claim or it requires for adjudication the presence of third persons over whom
    the court acquire jurisdiction. A compulsory counterclaim is barred if not set up in the same action.

    A counterclaim is permissive if it does not arise out of or is not necessarily connected with the
    subject matter of the opposing party's claim. It is essentially an independent claim that may be filed
    separately in another case.

    To determine whether a counterclaim is compulsory or permissive, we have devised the following


    tests: (a) Are the issues of fact and law raised by the claim and by the counterclaim largely the same? (b)
    Would res judicata bar a subsequent suit on defendants’ claims, absent the compulsory counterclaim
    rule? (c) Will substantially the same evidence support or refute plaintiffs’ claim as well as the defendants’
    counterclaim? and (d) Is there any logical relation between the claim and the counterclaim? A positive
    answer to all four questions would indicate that the counterclaim is compulsory.

    Since respondents' counterclaim is compulsory, it must be set up in the same action; otherwise, it
    would be barred forever. If it is filed concurrently with the main action but in a different proceeding, it would
    be abated on the ground of litis pendentia; if filed subsequently, it would meet the same fate on the ground
    of res judicata. There is, therefore, no need for respondents to pay docket fees and to file a certification
    against forum shopping for the court to acquire jurisdiction over the said counterclaim.

    You might also like