Cojuangco v. Villegas
Cojuangco v. Villegas
Cojuangco v. Villegas
VILLEGAS
TOPIC | G.R. No. 76838 | Ponente
DOCTRINE (for topic): A counterclaim or cross-claim shall be barred if not raised on time
and the party in error is precluded from setting it up in a subsequent litigation.
RTC Branch 15 MTC was reversed. Villegas was ordered to vacate the
premises and surrender possession to the petitioner.
RTC Branch 17 Respondent filed a civil suit for specific performance with
urgent prayer for issuance of a TRO and preliminary
injuction.
The RTC then issued a TRO enjoining the Cojuangco and
the sheriff of Br. 15 from executing the demolition order. It
also granted the prayer for preliminary injuction.
1) Whether or not Villegas can institute a separate independent civil action on the
ground that she and her predecessors-in-interest are builders in good faith and
are entitled to recover the value of improvement of the lots (OR, w/n Villegas can
institute a separate action on grounds which are essentially counterclaims)
a) GR: A counterclaim or cross-claim shall be barred if not raised on time
and the party in error is precluded from setting it up in a subsequent
litigation.
i) Rule 9, Section 4: “A counterclaim or cross-claim not set up shall be
barred if it arises out of or is necessarily connected with, the transaction
or occurrence that is the subject-matter of the opposing party’s or
coparty’s claim and does not require for its adjudication the presence of
third parties of whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction”
b) APPLICATION IN THE CASE: Villegas’ claim to recover compensation for
improvements made on the land is essentially in the nature of a
counterclaim.
i) According to Villegas, she did not raise the claim in the original action
because it only became “ripe” after the ejectment proceedings.
(1) COURT FOUND THIS CLAIM UNTENABLE. Her pleadings in
the original action stated that she made various improvements
and renovations on the lot. Such declarations negate her claim
that the factual basis for compensation for improvements arose
only after the judgment on the ejectment suit became final.
ii) What Villegas should have done is set up, simultaneously, the
alternative claim that she has the right to the value of the buildings and
improvements which she and her parents introduced to the land.
(1) Castle Bros., Wolf and Songs v. Go-Juno: Party may set forth
as many defenses and counterclaims as he may have, even if
they are inconsistent with each other because what is sufficient
is that each is consistent with itself.
iii) Since she did not raise this issue in the original case, it is already res
judicata as what is barred is not only the matters actually raised, but
also such matters which could have been raised but were not.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION
WHEREFORE, the petition is granted. The respondent court is hereby ordered to DISMISS
Civil Case No. 9094-M and all proceedings held therein are declared null and void. The
Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch XV is ordered to immediately execute the
decision in the ejectment case. Civil Case No. 7042-M. Costs against private respondent
Villegas. This decision is immediately executory.