Facts:

• Alicia Go and other plaintiffs filed an action in the Municipal Court of Manila to recover possession of a house and to claim damages and attorney's fees.
• Defendants, Alberto Go and others, filed an answer with several special defenses and a counterclaim divided into three causes of action.
• The first cause of action sought to recover the value of furniture and equipment allegedly taken by the plaintiffs.
• The second and third causes of action arose from the alleged unlawful institution of an ejectment action by the plaintiffs.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• The Court of First Instance had jurisdiction over th...(Unlock)

Ratio:

• Claims arising from different transactions cannot be joined in one single claim.
• The jurisdiction of the municipal court is determined by the amount of each claim, not the aggregate amount of the counterclaim.
• Each cause of action should be considered separately.
• Claims cannot be added together to make up the required jurisdictional amount.
• The purpose of allowing the joinder of parties is to save unnecessary work and expense.
• This ruling applies to both complaints and counterclaims.
• The three causes of action in the counterclaim arose from different sets of facts and could not be joined in one single claim.
• However, the second and third causes of action were deemed compulsory counterclaims a...continue reading