ALBA vs MALAPAJO

-This is a Petition file a complaint for recovery of ownership and declaration of nullity of title.
-The respondent file an answer claiming that they were innocent purchaser for value and claim of the unpaid
loans and damages to the plaintiff.
-The petition allege that the counter-claim is that of the permissive hence the repondents is required to pay
docket fee and to file a certification of forum shopping.
RTC ruled held that the counterclaim is that of the Compulsory hence this petition.
Issue : WON the counter claim is that of a permissive that requires the repondents in paying the docket fees.
HELD: The counter-claim is Compulsory. Compulsory counter-claim is one arising out of the same transaction
or is connected to the opposing party’s claim. The ruled laid down a test to determine whether or not the
counter-claim is a permissive or compulsory
1. Are the issue and facts, Law claims and counterclaims largely the same
2.Would RES JUDICATA bar’s the subsequent claim of the dependants absence of the compulsory
counterclaim.
3.Will substantially evidence support the plaintiff’s claim as well as the defendants counter-claim.
4.Is there lofical relation between the claim and the counterclaim
AN AFFIRMATIVE ANSWER TO ALL THIS TEST WILL RESULTS INTO COMPULSORY COUNTER-CLAIM. The court
held that the respondents are not required to pay docket fee and to file a certification of forum shopping since
the nature of the counterclaim is compulsory.

LIM TECK CHUAN vs UY

-A piece of lands sold by owner to spouses Cabansag without transfering a copy of the owner’s certificate of
title.
-The spouses cabansag sold the property to SERAFINE.
-Sefarin file’s a petition for re-issuance of the new owner’s duplicate copy which was granted but recalled by
the RTC becuase of the opposition of petitioner(LIM TECK CHUAN) alleging that he is the son the owner of the
land and that the certificate of title is not lost and he have it in his possession.
-A certain HENRY LIM exccuted A SOLE ADJUDICATION as one and only heir of the Antonio Lim with DEED OF
SALE was executed and sold the same lot to Leopolda.
-Serafin file a complaint for quiteing of title impleading as defendant Leopolda and henry.
-Leopolda file an counter-claim alleging that she is a purchaser in good faith and for value and that the proper
was never encumbered to any person during the lifetime of the original owner and that the sale to spouses
Cabansag was simulated and the document was never registered nor was there any annotation on the
ceritificate of title.
-Petition file answer and a CROSS-CLAIM to Leopolda alleging that there was never a transferred nor
encumbered to any person during his father’s lifetime and questioned HENRY’s CLAIM about being a sole a
hier
-During TRIAL the counsel of SEFARIN AND LEOPOLDA file a motion to dismiss on the grounds that there was
an on-going amicable settlement betweek Serafin and Leopolda which was opposed by the petitioner.
-RTC then dismiss the case including the counter-claim of the petitioner hence the petition.
ISSUE : Whether or not the dismissal of the action results into dismissal of the counter-claim.
HELD : The rtc Erred when it dismissed the case when the present rules state that the dismissal SHALL BE ONLY
LIMITED TO TO THE COMPLAINT (rule 17 sec 2)
-A dismissal of an action is different from a mere dismissal of the complaint. For this reason, since only the
complaint and not the action is dismissed, the defendant in spite of the dismissal may still prosecute his
counterclaim in the same action.
-The dismissal of the complaint DOES NOT NECESSARILY results to the DISMISSAL OF THE COUNTERCLAIM.