Case Digest (G.R. No. 198752)
Facts:
On October 19, 2009, Arturo C. Alba, Jr., duly represented by his attorneys‐in‐fact Arnulfo B. Alba and Alexander C. Alba, filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Roxas City, Branch 15, against Raymund D. Malapajo, Ramil D. Malapajo, and the Register of Deeds of Roxas City. He alleged that he was the registered owner of a 98,146‐square‐meter parcel in Bolo, Roxas City, covered by TCT No. T-22345, and that his title was cancelled based on a deed of sale he purportedly executed in favor of the Malapajos for ₱500,000.00. A new title, TCT No. T-56840, was subsequently issued to them. Petitioner maintained that the deed was forged and that respondents co-authored the falsification. The Malapajos answered, pleading status as innocent purchasers for value, asserting that the deed was presented to them already prepared and notarized, and alleging that petitioner had earlier obtained two loans from them and one from their mother secured by real estate mortgages onCase Digest (G.R. No. 198752)
Facts:
- Parties and Subject Matter
- Petitioner Arturo C. Alba, Jr., through attorneys-in-fact Arnulfo B. Alba and Alexander C. Alba, was the registered owner of a 98,146 sqm parcel in Bolo, Roxas City, covered by TCT No. T-22345.
- Respondents Raymund D. Malapajo and Ramil D. Malapajo acquired a new title (TCT No. T-56840) allegedly by virtue of a deed of sale for ₱500,000, which petitioner later claimed was forged and that respondents were co-authors of the forgery.
- Trial Court Proceedings
- On October 19, 2009, petitioner filed a complaint with the RTC of Roxas City, Branch 15, for recovery of ownership, declaration of nullity or cancellation of title, and damages. Respondents answered with counterclaims for reimbursement of loans secured by real estate mortgages on the subject property, plus interest.
- Petitioner challenged the counterclaims as permissive and raised issues of forum shopping and docket fees; the RTC denied his motion, ruling the counterclaims were compulsory (Order of June 4, 2010; denial of reconsideration on September 30, 2010).
- Court of Appeals Proceedings
- Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari before the CA (CA-GR SP No. 05594) to annul the RTC orders but the CA dismissed it for lack of proper proof of service (Resolution of February 28, 2011) and denied reconsideration (August 31, 2011) on technical grounds relating to registry receipts and affidavit content.
- Supreme Court Proceedings
- Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court via petition for review on certiorari, assigning errors on (a) classification of counterclaims as compulsory and (b) dismissal of the certiorari petition on technical grounds.
- The Supreme Court found that proof of service via registered mail was properly established under Section 13, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, and proceeded to resolve the merits regarding the nature of the counterclaims.
Issues:
- Whether the counterclaims filed by respondents are permissive in nature, thereby requiring separate docket fees and a certification against forum shopping, or are compulsory, hence to be set up in the same action without additional fees.
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari on pure technical grounds for alleged defective proof of service.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)