G.R. No. L-13143; April 26, 1961
DEMETRIO CARPENA, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. LUCIANO MANALO, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

FACTS

Beatriz Manalo, while in a common-law relationship with Luciano Manalo, sold her one-half interest in a co-owned lot to spouses Demetrio Carpena and Salud Catindig in 1947. The sale was kept secret from Luciano, with Beatriz retaining possession and paying taxes. After Beatriz and Luciano married and she subsequently died, the Carpenas registered the sale, obtained title, and demanded possession from Luciano. Luciano responded by filing an action (Civil Case No. 9194) to annul the sale and declare himself owner. The Carpenas, as defendants in that case, asserted the sale’s validity and their resulting ownership, praying for the complaint’s dismissal. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals dismissed Luciano’s action, upholding the sale.
Separately, a house existed on the sold portion. Originally built by a tenant in 1945, it was sold to Beatriz in 1947. After her death, Luciano and their children occupied and improved it before selling the house to Pelagia Cailles Vda. de Unson and Beronica Capareda in 1954. In 1955, the Carpenas filed the present action against Luciano and the house buyers to recover possession of the lot and the house, plus rental compensation from 1948. During the pendency of this case, the defendants moved the house off the lot without consent.

ISSUE

Whether the Carpenas’ claim for rental compensation in the present case is barred for failure to plead it as a compulsory counterclaim in the prior annulment suit (Civil Case No. 9194).

RULING

Yes, the claim for rents is barred. The Court ruled that the claim constituted a compulsory counterclaim that should have been raised in the prior litigation. In Civil Case No. 9194, Luciano sought to annul the sale and recover ownership of the property. The Carpenas’ right to collect rents for the occupancy of that same property and the house thereon was necessarily connected to the transaction—the validity of the sale—that was the subject of Luciano’s complaint. If the sale were annulled, they would have no right to rents; if upheld, as it was, they would have such a right. Following the precedent in Berses vs. Villanueva, a defendant must set up a compulsory counterclaim arising from the same transaction, such as for improvements or related rents, or be barred from asserting it later.
The appellants’ arguments against this were rejected. First, their claim that a counterclaim for rents would have been merely for unlawful detainer and thus outside the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance was untenable. Their answer in the prior case had, in essence, asserted an accion reivindicatoria (action for recovery of ownership), which inherently includes the issue of possession and related incidental claims like rents; the court therefore had jurisdiction over such a connected claim regardless of the rental amount. Second, the lack of perfect identity of parties (the present case includes the subsequent buyers of the house) does not evade res judicata, as a party cannot avoid the bar by simply adding new parties in subsequent litigation concerning the same core claim. The lower court’s dismissal of the claim for rental damages was affirmed.