RUIZ, JR. V.

CA
J. CRUZ

FACTS:
1. Crisologo family donated an island to the Sent of God Foundation on the condition
inter alia that it would "be used exclusively to provide a monastic life and experience
according to the Rule of St. Benedict and for such other religious and charitable
purposes as may be determined by the donee."
2. This was followed by a later donation of other lands, under the same conditions. The
subject properties were later transferred by the Foundation to the S of G Foundation
Inc., which introduced improvements thereon that, for reasons we do not need to
examine here, it later demolished
3. Believing that the conditions of the donations had been violated, the Crisologos filed
a complaint for revocation of the donations and the recovery of the properties
donated
4. Impleaded as defendants were the Sent of God Foundation, the S of G Foundation,
Inc., Raul G. Fores, Senen F. Valero, and Father Odon de Castro, the last three as
officers of the foundations. Also included were Olegario Orbeta and his wife, Susana
Rosario Orbeta, for their role in facilitating the donations.
5. ANSWER: the first-named defendants resisted the allegations in the complaint and
denied that the conditions of the donations had been violated the Orbeta spouses
confessed judgment in their answer but also filed a cross-claim for damages against
the other defendants for involving them in the litigation
6. The other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it
did not state a cause of action and that only the S of G Foundation was a real party-
in-interest. A copy of the motion was furnished the Orbeta spouses
7. TC dismissed the complaint for lack of cause of action cross-claim also dismissed
(January 2, 1989)
8. Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration, which was adopted by the Orbeta
spouses in an urgent ex parte manifestation denied
9. The Crisologos then challenged the order of dismissal before the Court of Appeals in
a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court dismissed; ground:
proper remedy was ordinary appeal became final
10. The Orbeta spouses, who had not joined the Crisologos filed their own petition for
certiorari, also with the Court of Appeals.
11. This petition prospered. On September 28, 1990, the respondent court annulled the
dismissal of the complaint by the trial court and ordered its reinstatement MR
DENIED
12. Hence, this petition

WHETHER THE ORBETA SPOUSES, AS CROSS-CLAIMANTS IN THE ORIGINAL

COMPLAINT, COULD STILL APPEAL ITS DISMISSAL IN THEIR PETITION FOR REVIEW?

No.

1. The most important reason is that the order of dismissal issued by the trial court had
already become final and executory at the time it was sought to be reversed. The
reglementary period for appealing it had already lapsed when the Crisologos filed
their petition for certiorari under Rule 65. This was correctly dismissed by the Court of
Appeals on the ground, as earlier stated, that the special civil action was not a
substitute for a lost appeal.
2. When the Orbetas filed their own petition on March 6, 1989, it was also after the
order they were questioning had already become unappealable. On this score alone,
the present petition must fail. Even as the petition of the plaintiffs themselves had
been earlier dismissed, similar treatment should have been given to the petition of
the Orbetas, who were appealing only as cross-claimants.
a. This decision became final on May 25, 1989, and entry of judgment was made
on July 11, 1989 (CA decision)
3. A cross-claim is any claim by one party against a co-party arising out of the
transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter either of the original
action or of a counter-claim therein. Such cross-claim may include a claim
that the party against whom it is asserted is or maybe liable to the cross-
claimant for all or part of a claim asserted in the action against the cross-
claimant.
4. The cross-claim in this case stemmed from the alleged unjust refusal of the donees to
return the donated properties, resulting in the Crisologos filing their complaint for
revocation of the donations. In their cross-claim, the Orbetas alleged that they were
dragged into the controversy because of the conduct of the petitioners. Their
contention was that they would not have been sued at all were it not for the failure of
the petitioners to comply with the conditions of the donations.
5. It is clear that the cross-claim arose from the complaint of the Crisologos and was not
separable from that main action. It had no independent existence and was based
entirely on that complaint. The cross-claim was defensive in character because it
could prosper only if the plaintiffs succeeded. As the plaintiffs failed to establish that
the petitioners' refusal was not justified, it necessarily followed that the private
respondents' own cross-claim, which was based on the same allegation, also had to
fail.
6. TORRES V. CA: A cross-bill strictly speaking is one brought by a defendant in an
equity suit against . . . other defendants in the same suit, touching the matters in
question in the original bill. It is considered as an auxiliary suit dependent upon the
original bill, and can be sustained only on matters growing out of the original bill.
There is a well-defined distinction between a cross-bill merely defensive in character,
and one seeking affirmative relief. The dismissal of the original bill carries with it a
purely defensive cross-bill but not one seeking affirmative relief. The cross-claim in
this case was purely defensive in nature. It arose entirely out of the complaint and
could prosper only if the plaintiffs succeeded. Hence, under the principle above
enunciated, it could not be the subject of independent adjudication once it lost the
nexus upon which its life depended
7. The cross-claimants cannot claim more rights than the plaintiffs themselves, on
whose cause of action the cross-claim depended. The dismissal of the complaint
divested the cross-claimants of whatever appealable interest they might have had
before and also made the cross-claim itself no longer viable.
8. A party has an appealable interest only when his property may be
diminished, his burdens increased or his rights prejudiced by the order
sought to be reviewed
9. In the case at bar, the consequence of the dismissal of the complaint was the
cessation of the cross-claimants' exposure to injury, which risk would in fact have
continued if the Crisologos' appeal had succeeded. It bears stressing that when the
plaintiffs' petition was dismissed by the Court of Appeals, the cross-claim lost its
basis, which was the dismissed complaint itself. Earlier, in fact, the dismissal of the
cross-claim had already become unappealable when the order dismissing the
complaint became final and executory.
 10.The Orbetas, as cross-claimants, had no personality to pursue a remedy which
properly belonged to the Crisologos who, through their fault or negligence; failed to
employ it. Accordingly, the petition filed by the Orbetas should have been dismissed
outright by the respondent court on the ground that the cross-claimants were not
proper parties to appeal the dismissal of the complaint.
RTC AFFIRMED