This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2016-01-13 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Petitioner seeks to recover the subject property by assailing the validity of the deed of sale on the subject property which he allegedly executed in favor of respondents Malapajo on the ground of forgery. Respondents counter-claimed that, in case the deed of sale is declared null and void, they be paid the loan petitioner obtained from them plus the agreed monthly interest which was covered by a real estate mortgage on the subject property executed by petitioner in favor of respondents. There is a logical relationship between the claim and the counterclaim, as the counterclaim is connected with the transaction or occurrence constituting the subject matter of the opposing party's claim. Notably, the same evidence to sustain respondents' counterclaim would disprove petitioner's case. In the event that respondents could convincingly establish that petitioner actually executed the promissory note and the real estate mortgage over the subject property in their favor then petitioner's complaint might fail. Petitioner's claim is so related logically to respondents' counterclaim, such that conducting separate trials for the claim and the counterclaim would result in the substantial duplication of the time and effort of the court and the parties.[20] | |||||
|
2007-12-19 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Petitioners also question the trial court's ruling that their counterclaim is permissive. This Court has laid down the following tests to determine whether a counterclaim is compulsory or not, to wit: (1) Are the issues of fact or law raised by the claim and the counterclaim largely the same? (2) Would res judicata bar a subsequent suit on defendant's claims, absent the compulsory counterclaim rule? (3) Will substantially the same evidence support or refute plaintiff's claim as well as the defendant's counterclaim? and (4) Is there any logical relation between the claim and the counterclaim, such that the conduct of separate trials of the respective claims of the parties would entail a substantial duplication of effort and time by the parties and the court?[18] | |||||