Case Digest (G.R. No. 198752)
Facts:
The case involves Arturo C. Alba, Jr. as the petitioner, duly represented by his attorneys-in-fact, Arnulfo B. Alba and Alexander C. Alba, against respondents Raymund D. Malapajo, Ramil D. Malapajo, and the Register of Deeds for the City of Roxas. The events leading to the case began on October 19, 2009, when the petitioner filed a complaint with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Roxas City, Branch 15. The complaint sought recovery of ownership and/or declaration of nullity or cancellation of title and damages concerning a parcel of land measuring 98,146 square meters located in Bolo, Roxas City, which was covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-22345. The petitioner claimed to be the previous registered owner of the property, asserting that his title was canceled due to a deed of sale he allegedly executed in favor of the respondents for a consideration of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00). The petitioner contended that the deed of sale was forged and th...
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:
- 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.
- 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.
- Technicalities vs. Substance: The Court emphasized that technicalities should not prevail over substantive justice, especially when compliance with procedural rules has been demonstrated.