Scribd
Upload
149 views1 page

Alba vs. Malapajo

The Supreme Court ruled that the respondents' counterclaim for reimbursement of a loan if the deed of sale was declared void, was compulsory, not permissive. A compulsory counterclaim arises from the same transaction or occurrence as the opposing party's claim. The counterclaim and main claim involved largely the same facts and law, would be barred by res judicata if not raised together, and involved the same evidence. As compulsory, the counterclaim did not require docket fees or a certification against forum shopping to be under the court's jurisdiction.

Uploaded by

MAC
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
149 views1 page

Alba vs. Malapajo

The Supreme Court ruled that the respondents' counterclaim for reimbursement of a loan if the deed of sale was declared void, was compulsory, not permissive. A compulsory counterclaim arises from the same transaction or occurrence as the opposing party's claim. The counterclaim and main claim involved largely the same facts and law, would be barred by res judicata if not raised together, and involved the same evidence. As compulsory, the counterclaim did not require docket fees or a certification against forum shopping to be under the court's jurisdiction.

Uploaded by

MAC
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Alba vs.

Malapajo
G.R. No. 198752 January 13, 2016

Issue: Whether or not respondents’ counterclaim, i.e., reimbursement of the loan obtained from them in
case the deed of absolute sale is declared null and void on the ground of forgery, is permissive in nature
which requires the payment of docket fees and a certification against forum shopping for the trial court to
acquire jurisdiction over the same.

Held: No.

A counterclaim is any claim which a defending party may have against an opposing party. A
compulsory counterclaim is one which, being cognizable by the regular courts of justice, arises out of or is
connected with the transaction or occurrence constituting the subject matter of the opposing party's claim
and does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the court cannot acquire
jurisdiction. Such a counterclaim must be within the jurisdiction of the court both as to the amount and the
nature thereof, except that in an original action before the Regional Trial Court, necessarily connected with
the subject matter of the opposing party's claim or even where there is such a connection, the Court has
no jurisdiction to entertain the claim or it requires for adjudication the presence of third persons over whom
the court acquire jurisdiction. A compulsory counterclaim is barred if not set up in the same action.

A counterclaim is permissive if it does not arise out of or is not necessarily connected with the
subject matter of the opposing party's claim. It is essentially an independent claim that may be filed
separately in another case.

To determine whether a counterclaim is compulsory or permissive, we have devised the following


tests: (a) Are the issues of fact and law raised by the claim and by the counterclaim largely the same? (b)
Would res judicata bar a subsequent suit on defendants’ claims, absent the compulsory counterclaim
rule? (c) Will substantially the same evidence support or refute plaintiffs’ claim as well as the defendants’
counterclaim? and (d) Is there any logical relation between the claim and the counterclaim? A positive
answer to all four questions would indicate that the counterclaim is compulsory.

Since respondents' counterclaim is compulsory, it must be set up in the same action; otherwise, it
would be barred forever. If it is filed concurrently with the main action but in a different proceeding, it would
be abated on the ground of litis pendentia; if filed subsequently, it would meet the same fate on the ground
of res judicata. There is, therefore, no need for respondents to pay docket fees and to file a certification
against forum shopping for the court to acquire jurisdiction over the said counterclaim.

You might also like