365. FRANCEL REALTY CORPORATION vs.
COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 11705. January 22, 1996
FACTS: Petitioner filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against private respondent Sycip. The
case was filed before MTC of Bacoor, Cavite. Petitioner alleged that private respondent failed to
pay the monthly amortization despite demands to update his payments and to vacate the
premises.
MTC dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction; the case was cognizable by the HLURB.
On appeal, RTC affirmed the decision of the MTC. CA dismissed the petition, holding that the
MTC had jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer, regardless of the
amount of damages on unpaid rentals sought to be recovered in view of the Revised Rule on
Summary Procedure.
ISSUE: Whether or not the MTC has jurisdiction over petitioner's complaint.
HELD: No, the matter of collecting amortizations for the sale of the subdivision lot is necessarily
tied up to the complaint against the plaintiff and it affects the rights and correlative duties of the
buyer of a subdivision lot as regulated by NHA pursuant to PD 957 as amended. It must
accordingly fall within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the said Board, and the Court find that
the motion to dismiss was properly granted on the ground that the regular court has no
jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint.
366. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RAFAEL DE LA CRUZ
G.R. No. 59957. November 12, 1990.
FACTS: Monetary Board, placed Libmanan Bank under statutory receivership. Libmanan
Bank failed to submit the required acceptable reorganization and rehabilitation plan, the
Monetary Board ordered its liquidation.
Central Bank, through its house counsel, filed a motion for extension of time to file its
responsive pleading. CB was declared in default for failure to file a responsive pleading.
ISSUE: Whether or not a banking institution’s claim may be asserted as an affirmative defense
or a counterclaim.
HELD: Yes, a banking institution’s claim that a resolution of the Monetary Board under Section
29 of the Central Bank Act should be set aside as plainly arbitrary and made in bad faith, may
be asserted as an affirmative defense (Sections 1 and 4[b], Rule 6, Rules of Court) or a
counterclaim (Section 6, Rule 6; Section 2, Rule 72 of the Rules of Court) in the proceedings for
assistance in liquidation or as a cause of action in a separate and distinct action where the latter
was filed ahead of the petition for assistance in liquidation (Central Bank v. Court of Appeals,
106 SCRA 143).
367. DOUGLAS B. ALVIR vs. HON. RIZALINA B. VERA
G.R. No. L-39338 July 16, 1984
FACTS: After subject property had been adjudicated to petitioner as its new owner during the
settlement of the estate of his late father Dr. Antonio B. Alvir, wrote private respondents to
vacate the premises, however, the private respondents ignored.
Petitioner filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against private respondents before the
Municipal Court of San Juan, Rizal. Municipal court ruled in favor of Douglas B. Alvir. On
appeal, CFI Rizal set aside the decision and dismissed the complaint.
ISSUE: Whether or not the inferior court has jurisdiction over the case.
HELD: No, a mere allegation by the defendant in an ejectment case, that he is the owner of the
real property involved therein, does not and cannot divest the inferior court of its jurisdiction over
the ejectment suit. However, if it appears during the trial that by the nature of the proof
presented, the question of possession cannot be property determined without settling that of
ownership, then the jurisdiction of the court is lost and the action should be dismissed.
368. FRANCISCO DEPRA vs. AGUSTIN DUMLAO
G.R. No. L-57348 May 16, 1985
FACTS: DUMLAO constructed his house, the kitchen thereof had encroached of DEPRA's
property, After the encroachment was discovered in a relocation survey of DEPRA's lot, his
mother, Beatriz Depra after writing a demand letter asking DUMLAO to move back from his
encroachment, filed an action for Unlawful Detainer against DUMLAO in the Municipal Court of
of Dumangas.
After trial, the Municipal Court ordered that a forced lease is created between the parties. From
the foregoing judgment, neither party appeal.
DEPRA filed a Complaint for Quieting of Title against DUMLAO involving the very same subject
property. DUMLAO, in his answer, alleged that the present suit is barred by res judicata.
ISSUE: Whether or not the present suit is barred by res judicata.
HELD: NO, the rule on res judicata would not apply due to difference in cause of action. In the
Municipal Court, the cause of action was the deprivation of possession, while in the action to
quiet title, the cause of action was based on ownership.
369. BACLAYON vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 89132 February 26, 1990
FACTS: Petitioners filed a complaint for recovery of ownership and possession, and damages,
against spouses Marciano Bacalso and Gregoria Sabandeja. Trial court rendered a decision in
favor of the Bacalso spouses, declaring them owners of the subject lot, which decision was
appealed by the petitioners to the respondent Court of Appeals. CA reversed the trial court
decision.
The decision in favor of the petitioners having become final and executor, the private
respondents argued that since they were found by the respondent court as builders and/or
planters in good faith, a reception of evidence to determine the correct value of the necessary
and useful improvements must be done first before ordering the execution.
ISSUE: Whether or not the private respondents can still file a separate complaint against the
petitioners.
HELD: Although the alternative defense of being builders in good faith is only permissive, the
counterclaim for reimbursement of the value of the improvements is in the nature of a
compulsory counterclaim. Thus, the failure by the private respondents to set it up bars their right
to raise it in a subsequent litigation (Rule 9, Section 4 of the Rules of Court). We realize the
plight of the private respondents, the rule on compulsory counterclaim is designed to enable the
disposition of the whole controversy at one time and in one action. The philosophy of the rule is
to discourage multiplicity of suits.
