Title
Alba, Jr. vs. Malapajo
Case
G.R. No. 198752
Decision Date
Jan 13, 2016
Petitioner alleges forged deed of sale; respondents claim innocent purchase, counterclaim for loan reimbursement. SC rules counterclaim compulsory, sets aside CA dismissal on technical grounds.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 198752)

Facts:

Ownership and Alleged Forgery

  • Petitioner Arturo C. Alba, Jr., represented by his attorneys-in-fact, Arnulfo B. Alba and Alexander C. Alba, filed a complaint against respondents Raymund D. Malapajo, Ramil D. Malapajo, and the Register of Deeds of Roxas City. The complaint sought the recovery of ownership and/or declaration of nullity or cancellation of title over a parcel of land in Bolo, Roxas City, covered by TCT No. T-22345. Petitioner alleged that his title was canceled due to a forged deed of sale executed in favor of respondents for P500,000.00, resulting in the issuance of a new TCT No. T-56840 in respondents' names.

Respondents' Defense

  • Respondents claimed they were innocent purchasers for value and that the deed of sale was a unilateral document presented to them already prepared and notarized. They also asserted that petitioner had obtained loans from them and their mother, secured by real estate mortgages on the subject property, which remained undischarged. Respondents counterclaimed for damages and reimbursement of the loan plus interest if the deed of sale was declared null and void.

Procedural History

  • Petitioner filed a motion to set the case for preliminary hearing, arguing that respondents' counterclaims were permissive and required payment of docket fees and a certification against forum shopping. The RTC denied the motion, ruling that the counterclaims were compulsory. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the CA, which dismissed it for lack of proper proof of service. The CA denied reconsideration, emphasizing that registry receipts alone were insufficient proof of service.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • (Unlock)

Ratio:

  1. Nature of Counterclaim: A counterclaim is compulsory if it arises out of or is connected with the transaction or occurrence constituting the subject matter of the opposing party's claim. Respondents' counterclaim for reimbursement of the loan was logically connected to petitioner's claim of forgery, as the same evidence would disprove petitioner's case. Thus, it was compulsory and did not require separate docket fees or a certification against forum shopping.
  2. Proof of Service: The CA erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari on technical grounds. Petitioner had complied with the proof of service requirement under Section 13, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure by submitting an affidavit of service and registry receipts.
  3. Technicalities vs. Substance: The Court emphasized that technicalities should not prevail over substantive justice, especially when compliance with procedural rules has been demonstrated.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.