COJUANGCO v.

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.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

Cause of Action Issuance of RTC 17 of Orders enjoining RTC 15 from

implementing the demolition of respondent’s house

Nature Petition for certiorari and prohibition

Parties Petitioner: Lualhati Cojuangco

Respondents: Purificacion Villegas and Presiding Judge of
Malolos RTC Br. 17
 Don Juan Cojuangco (petitioner’s husband) acquiesced to the construction of a
residential house and bakery of the respondent’s parents on the former’s lot in Malolos,
Bulacan on the condition that they would vacate the premises when needed by the
owner
o Respondent Villegas remained in the property even after the death of her
parents. She leased a portion of the lot to Siapno Appliances without the
consent of the Don Juan Cojuangco.
o Because of this, Don Juan demanded that the respondent leave the property
BUT she refused.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY (please note the difference in the RTC branches):

MTC  Don Juan instituted ejectment proceedings with the MTC

of Malolos BUT he died, hence, we was substituted by
Lualhati and their nephews and nieces.
 Respondent Villegas asserted that since there was an
adverse claim of ownership, the action was transformed
into an accion publiciana which was cognizable by the CFI.
 MTC dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

RTC Branch 15  MTC was reversed. Villegas was ordered to vacate the
premises and surrender possession to the petitioner.

CA  Upheld the CFI decision

SC  Upheld the CA and CFI decision. Entry of judgment was

made on Nov. 20, 1985

RTC Branch 15  Petitioner filed a motion for execution of the Nov. 20

judgment, which the court granted.
 Writ of demolition was issued against Villegas. Villegas did
not contest the demolition BUT requested that the court
give her more time to transfer (+40 days from August 7)

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.

SC  Petitioner now assails the validity of the 2 Orders issued

by RTC 17 which she alleged to constitute an undue
interference with a final and executory order of a co-equal
court (RTC 15)

ISSUES with HOLDING:

1) Whether or not the execution of a final judgment in an ejectment case may be

stayed by a co-equal court – NO.
a) “No court has power to interfere by injunction with the judgments or decrees of
a court of concurrent or coordinate jurisdiction having power to grant the relief
sought by injunction.” – Cabigao v. Del Rosario
b) Court said that it is plainly evident that the injunction issued by RTC Br. 17 is
improper.
i) RTC reason for issuing the assailed Orders: the impending demolition
of Villegas’ house and other buildings on the disputed property would
render inutile her right as a builder in good faith
ii) Court ruled: not sufficient to warrant a blatant disregard of
established precedents especially when it is borne in mind that for
more than half a century, Villegas and her family have enjoyed
the fruits of the land

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.