G.R. No. 155701 - Chuan vs. Uy

The case involves Lim Teck Chuan (petitioner) versus Serafin Uy and Leopolda Cecilio, Lim Sing Chan @ Henry Lim (respondents).
The dispute concerns a parcel of land, Lot 5357, with an area of 33,610 square meters located in Barrio Agus, Lapu-lapu City, Cebu, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-0500.
Antonio Lim Tanhu was the registered owner of Lot 5357, which he allegedly sold to Spouses Francisco and Estrella Cabansag by a Deed of Sale dated January 8, 1966.
The Spouses Cabansag failed to transfer title due to Francisco’s frequent travels abroad.
In 1988, Spouses Cabansag sold the lot to Serafin Uy. However, the transfer to Serafin was complicated by lost ownership documents and the non-registration under Spouses Cabansag's name.

Serafin Uy filed a petition on May 15, 1996, for issuance of a new owner’s duplicate TCT in his name, seeking cancellation of TCT No. T-0500 registered under Antonio Lim Tanhu.
The RTC initially ordered issuance of a new owner’s duplicate title to Serafin but later recalled the order after a descendant of Antonio Lim Tanhu, the petitioner (Lim Teck Chuan), opposed, asserting he possessed the original title and claimed ownership.
On August 2, 1996, Lim Sing Chan alias Henry Lim executed an Affidavit of Sole Adjudication/Settlement of Estate in which he claimed to be the sole surviving heir of Antonio Lim Tanhu and sold the lot to Leopolda Cecilio for ₱500,000.
Serafin Uy filed Civil Case No. 4786-L on July 25, 1997, for quieting of title, nullification of Henry’s affidavit of self-adjudication, annulment of tax declaration in Leopolda's name, and other reliefs. The petitioner and Henry were impleaded as defendants.

Leopolda claimed to be buyer in good faith, asserting previous sales were simulated or spurious; she maintained possession as owner based on Henry’s affidavit of self-adjudication and new tax declaration.
The petitioner challenged Henry's claim as heir, declared the sales simulated and intended to defraud Antonio Lim Tanhu’s estate, and questioned the validity of Henry’s affidavit and Leopolda’s claim.
Henry did not file an answer.
At the pre-trial conference, parties stipulated several facts, including Antonio’s registered ownership, his death, his six children including the petitioner, and the existence of key documents: two deeds of sale (1966 and 1988) and Henry's affidavit of self-adjudication with deed of sale (1996).
The parties also agreed on the issues about validity of causes of action, counterclaims, and cross-claims.

The RTC denied Serafin’s motion for summary judgment due to genuine issues of fact and set the trial for March 28, 2001, later postponed.
Serafin and Leopolda filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss on September 20, 2001, citing amicable settlement whereby Serafin secured a certificate of title dated July 26, 2001, and both agreed to cancel it to issue a new common title.
They indicated the petitioner’s potential claims could be pursued in an independent action.
The petitioner opposed the motion, alleging bad faith and fraudulent acts by Serafin and Leopolda, specifically concerning forged documents, misrepresentation about Henry’s heirship, and sought to have his counterclaims and cross-claims resolved in the same case.
Petitioner also moved to implead Spouses Cabansag as indispensable parties.
The RTC granted the Joint Motion to Dismiss on April 25, 2002, dismissed the case including counterclaims, and denied the motion to implead.
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied on October 21, 2002.

The petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court through a Rule 45 petition, contending the RTC erred in dismissing the entire case including his counterclaim despite his timely opposition and preference to have said counterclaims resolved in the pending action in accordance with Section 2, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court.
Respondents questioned the Supreme Court's jurisdiction, but the Court held that the issue presented was a question of law, justifying direct review.

Whether or not the dismissal of the complaint upon the plaintiff's (Serafin's) joint motion to dismiss also entails dismissal of the defendant's (petitioner’s) counterclaim and cross-claims.
Whether or not the petitioner’s timely manifestation of preference to have his counterclaims and cross-claims resolved in the same action prohibits the dismissal of the entire case.
Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the petition for review on certiorari by the petitioner given the nature of the RTC dismissal order.