GR 25889; (January, 1973) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-25889 January 17, 1973
HON. GUILLERMO E. TORRES, as Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch VIII, THE PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF THE PROVINCE OF RIZAL, JAIME E. LAICO and LUZ LOS BANOS-LAICO, petitioners-appellants, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, JOSE CHIVI and ANGELINA CHIVI as representative of the deceased MARTA B. CHIVI, respondents-appellees.
FACTS
The case originated from a dispute over a parcel of land. Isidro Sierra and Antonia Magtaas sold the land to Marta B. Chivi in 1955, falsely representing it was unpatented. Chivi later sold her rights to spouses Jaime and Luz Laico in 1958, with a stipulation for penalty if title transfer failed. In 1960, it was discovered Sierra had actually obtained a free patent for the land in 1932. The Sierras then sued Chivi and the Laicos (Civil Case No. 6184) to repurchase the land under the Public Land Act. The Laicos filed an answer with a counterclaim against the Sierras and a cross-claim against Chivi, seeking the penalty for her failure to deliver title, explicitly alleging this claim depended on the Sierras obtaining a favorable judgment.
In 1964, the Sierras and Laicos entered into a compromise agreement without Chivi’s knowledge. The trial court approved it, dismissing the Sierras’ complaint against the Laicos and the Laicos’ counterclaim against the Sierras. The court, however, proceeded with the Laicos’ cross-claim against Chivi. After declaring Chivi in default at a pre-trial she did not attend, the court rendered judgment against her on the cross-claim and issued a writ of execution. Chivi then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court retained jurisdiction to proceed with and adjudicate the Laicos’ cross-claim against Chivi after the dismissal of the main complaint filed by the Sierras.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, ruling that the trial court lost jurisdiction over the cross-claim. The legal logic is anchored on the nature of a cross-claim as auxiliary and dependent on the main action. The Court distinguished between a cross-bill that is merely defensive and one that seeks affirmative relief. A purely defensive cross-claim, which arises entirely out of the original complaint and can only prosper if the plaintiff succeeds, cannot survive the dismissal of the main complaint. It loses its jurisdictional foundation.
Here, the Laicos’ cross-claim was explicitly defensive and conditional, as it was premised on the Sierras obtaining a favorable judgment. Once the Sierras’ complaint was dismissed via compromise, the very basis for the cross-claim vanished. Consequently, the cross-claim should have been dismissed as a matter of course. By proceeding to hear evidence and render judgment on a claim that had become moot and jurisdictionally untenable, the trial court committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, which is correctible by certiorari. The Court also found no laches, as Chivi acted promptly after the execution was issued.