32 Chuan v.
Uy FACTS:
GR No. 155701| March 11, 2015 | Rule 17 | Ian
Petitioner: Lim Teck Chuan
Respondents: Serafin Uy et al.
Recit-Ready Facts: Antonio owned a parcel of land in Cebu. He sold this to
Spouses Cabansag, but the Sps failed to transfer the title in their names. The
Sps then sold this to Serafin Uy (respondent). Sefain filed to have a new
owner’s duplicate TCT in her name. Chuan (petitioner) opposed this saying
that he is a legitimate descendant of Antonio and that the original TCT was not
lost but has always been in his custody.
Meanwhile, Henry Lim, claiming to be the only surviving heir of Antonio, sold
the lot to Leopolda. Serafin filed a complaint for quieting of title and nullity of
the sale, impleading Leopolda, Henry, and Chuan.
Serafin and Leopolda had a settlement and submitted a Joint Motion to
Dismiss where Leopolda waived her counterclaim for damages. Chuan
opposed this saying that he still has valid counterclaims against Serafin.
Serafin argued that by virtue of the settlement, Chuan’s counterclaims were
also negated. The RTC granted the MTD, and also proceeded to dismiss the
counterclaims.
Issue: W/N the dismissal of the complaint specifically upon motion of the
plaintiff under Sec. 2 of Rule 17 of the RoC also calls for the dismissal of the
defendant’s counterclaim? NO.
Doctrine: Sec. 2, Rule 17 states that if a counterclaim has been pleaded by a
defendant prior to the service upon him or her of the plaintiff's motion for
dismissal, the dismissal shall be limited to the complaint.
Application to the case: The RTC erred when it dismissed the case when the
present rule state that the dismissal shall be limited only to the complaint. A
dismissal of an action is different from a mere dismissal of the complaint.
Since only the complaint and not the action is dismissed, the defendant in
spite of said dismissal may still prosecute his counterclaim in the same action.
1. A piece of land in Lapu lapu City Cebu known as Lot 5357 is owned and
registered under the name of Antonio Lim Tanhu married to Dy Ochay.
2. The said lot was sold by Antonio to Spouses Cabansag but the latter failed
to transfer the title to their names.
3. The Spouses Cabansag later sold the lot to Serafin. The Spouses
Cabansag tried to transfer the property in their names first in order to transfer
title to Serafin but the owner’s copy of TCT was lost. Serafin then filed a
petition before RTC praying for the issuance of new owner’s duplicate TCT in
his name.
4. Serafin’s petition was granted but was recalled and nullified later on the
ground that petitioner Chuan filed an Opposition and/or Motion for
Reconsideration with Manifestation for Special Appearance alleging that he
is one of the 6 legitimate descendants of Antonio and that the original
owner’s copy of TCT was not lost and has always been in his custody.
5. In the meantime, Henry Lim executed an Affidavit of Sole
Adjudication/Settlement of Estate of Antonio Lim Tanhu with Deed of Sale
claiming that he is the only surviving heir of Antonio and Lot 5357 was
sold by Henry to Leopolda.
6. Serafin then filed a complaint for quieting of title and for the nullity of the
affidavit of adjudication and sale.
7. Leopolda, filed her Answer with counterclaim and cross – claim against
Henry asserting that she was a buyer in good faith and for value.
8. Petitioner Chuan averred in his Answer with counterclaim and cross –
claims against Leopolda and Henry that lot 5357 was never transferred no
encumbered to any person during Antonios life.
9. During the pre tiral conference, the parties agreed to the issue of whether
or not defendants Leopolda and Chuan have valid counterclaims against the
plaintiff. The initial trial of the case was reset and then Serafin and
Leopolda submitted a Joint Motion to Dismiss where Leopolda has
agreed to waive her counterclaim for damages in the instant case;
Serafin has secured already a certificate of title to lot 5357 in his name and
that whatever claim Chuan may have on said lot may be an appropriate
independent action.
10. Petitioner Chuan filed his Opposition praying for the denial of the Joint
Motion to Dismiss on the ground of bad faith and claiming that he has valid
counterclaims against Serafin for moral and exemplary damages including
attorney’s fees. Serafin filed his Reply to petitioner Chuan and averred that
by reason of the amicable settlement between him and Leopolda, the latter
waived and abandoned all rights to the lot. Ergo, as far as Leopolda is
concerned, her waiver negated all the legal consequences of Tax Declaration
and Henry’s affidavit of self-adjudication.
11. Since the same were the very documents that casts clouds on Serafin’s
title, his main causes of action in the case at bench had become moot and
academic as the title to the said lot had been quieted.
12. The petitioner filed a Motion to Implead Indispensable parties (Spouses
Cabansag) and Supplemental Opposition to Joint Motion to Dismiss. RTC
granted only the motion to dismiss and ordered the case dismissed so with
the respective counterclaims of the defendants.
13. The Motion for Reconsideration of petitioner was denied so he filed a
petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, faulting the RTC for dismissing
the case in its entirety in spite of his counterclaim and cross – claim. He
asserts that within 15 days from notice of the filing of the joint motion to
dismiss, he filed his opposition thereto and expressed his preference to have
his counterclaim and cross – claim be resolved in the same action. The court
should have limited its action to the dismissal of complaint
ISSUES: W/N the dismissal of the complaint specifically upon motion of the
plaintiff under Sec.2 of Rule 17 of the RoC also calls for the dismissal of the
defendant’s counterclaim? NO.
RATIO:
1. The RTC granted the Joint Motion to Dismiss upon the behest of Serafin,
on the main ground that the case had become moot and academic since his
title to lot 5357 had been allegedly quieted and the reliefs prayed for were
obtained. The RTC interpreted that what is contemplated under the Rules
authorizing the hearing of defendant’s counterclaim is when the dismissal is
not at the instance of the plaintiff.
2. The RTC erred when it dismissed the case when the present rule state
that the dismissal shall be limited only to the complaint. A dismissal of an
action is different from a mere dismissal of the complaint. Since only the
complaint and not the action is dismissed, the defendant in spite of said
dismissal may still prosecute his counterclaim in the same action.
3. In the Opposition to the Joint Motion to Dismiss, petitioner expressed his
preference to have his counterclaim and cross – claim prosecuted in the
same case. From the case’s inception, the petitioner’s interest and that of his
siblings over the subject property were vigilantly defended as evidenced by
the numerous and exchange of pleadings made by the parties. It cannot
therefore be denied that the petitioner has certainly valid defenses and
enforceable claims against the respondents for being dragged into this case.
Thus, petitioner’s manifestation of his preference to have his counterclaim
prosecuted in the same action is valid and in accordance with Sec. 2 Rule 17
or RoC.
Relevant Laws/Rules
Section 2. Dismissal upon motion of plaintiff. — Except as provided in the
preceding section, a complaint shall not be dismissed at the plaintiffs
instance save upon approval of the court and upon such terms and
conditions as the court deems proper. If a counterclaim has been pleaded
by a defendant prior to the service upon him or her of the plaintiff's
motion for dismissal, the dismissal shall be limited to the complaint.
The dismissal shall be without prejudice to the right of the defendant to
prosecute his or her counterclaim in a separate action unless within
fifteen (15) calendar days from notice of the motion he or she manifests his
or her preference to have his or her counterclaim resolved in the same action.
Unless otherwise specified in the order, a dismissal under this paragraph
shall be without prejudice. A class suit shall not be dismissed or
compromised without the approval of the court.
Disposition of the Court
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED.
The Orders dated April 25, 2002 and October 21, 2002 of the Regional Trial
Court of Lapu-lapu City, Branch 27 in Civil Case No. 4786-L are MODIFIED
that in the counterclaim of Lim Teck Chuan as defendant in Civil Case No.
4786-L is REINSTATED. The Regional Trial Court is ORDERED to hear and
decide Lim Teck Chuan's counterclaim with dispatch.