GSIS v. Heirs of Caballero court can acquire jurisdiction over the said counterclaim.
court can acquire jurisdiction over the said counterclaim. GSIS failed to pay the docket fees for
G.R. No. 158090
October 4, 2010
FACTS: Respondent Fernando Caballero was the registered owner of a residential lot situated
at Rizal St., Mlang, Cotabato. On the said lot, Fernando built a residential/commercial building
consisting of 2 stories.
On March 7, 1968, Fernando and his wife Sylvia secured a loan from Petitioner GSIS. In view of
such loan the spouses executed a Real Estate Mortgage holding the abovementioned
property as a security. Fernando defaulted on the payment of his loan which eventually
caused the foreclosure of his property. On March 26, 1973, the property was sold in a public
auction where petitioner was the only bidder. For failure of Fernando to redeem the said
property, petitioner executed an Affidavit of Consolidation of Ownership in 1975.
Consequently, a new TCT was issued in the name of petitioner GSIS.
On November 26, 1975, petitioner informed Fernando of the consolidation of title in its favor
and requested payment of monthly rental in view of Fernando’s continued occupancy of the
subject property. Fernando requested that he be allowed to repurchase the said property
through partial payment but no agreement was reached between the parties.
On January 16, 1989, petitioner GSIS scheduled the subject property for public bidding. On the
date of bidding, Fernando’s daughter, Jocelyn, submitted a bid of P 350,000 while Carmelita
Mercantile Trading Corporation (CMTC) submitted a bid bid of P 450,000. Since CMTC was the
highest bidder, it was awrded the subject property. A deed of absolute sale was executed
between petitioner and CMTC and thereafter a new TCT was issued in the name of CMTC.
Fernando filed a complaint against CMTC and GSIS praying that the resolution issued by GSIS
awarding the property to CMTC, the deed of absolute sale and the TCT issued in the name of
CMTC be held null and void due to irregularities in the conduct of the bidding specifically the
misrepresentation on the part of CMTC wherein it claimed that it is a wholly Filipino owned
corporation and that it is not authorized to acquire real estate or invest its funds for purposes
other than its primary purpose. Fernando also alleged that GSIS disregarded his prior right to
buy back his family home and lot.
Petitioner GSIS filed its Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaim. It alleged that Fernando has lost
his right of redemption for he failed to exercise the same within the period fixed by law. In its
counterclaim, GSIS alleged that Fernando owed GSIS P 130,365.81 representing back rentals
and additional interests, and the additional amount of P 249,800 representing rentals unlawfully
collected from CMTC.
RTC ruled in favor of GSIS and granted its counterclaim and directed Fernando to pay
petitioner the rentals paid by CMTC in the amount of P 249,800. However, on appeal, the CA,
although affirming the decision of the RTC, modified the portion of the judgment ordering
Fernando to pay rentals in the amount of P 249.800 since the same is in the nature of a
permissive counterclaim which required the payment by GSIS of docket fees before the trial
the same.
ISSUE: WON GSIS’ counterclaim representing the P 249,800 is in the nature of a permissive
counterclaim or compulsory counterclaim.
HELD: IT IS PERMISSIVE.
To determine whether a counterclaim is compulsory or not, the Court has devised the following
tests: (a) Are the issues of fact and law raised by the claim and by the counterclaim largely the
same? (b) Would res judicata bar a subsequent suit on defendant’s claims, absent the
compulsory counterclaim rule? (c) Will substantially the same evidence support or refute
plaintiff’s claim as well as the defendant’s counterclaim? and (d) Is there any logical relation
between the claim and the counterclaim? A positive answer to all four questions would
indicate that the counterclaim is compulsory.
The issue in the main action is entirely different from the issue in the counterclaim. Considering
that the counterclaim is permissive in nature, we follow the rule in permissive counterclaims
which states that for the trial court to acquire jurisdiction over the same, the counterclaimant is
bound to pay the prescribed docket fees. Since the petitioner failed to pay the docket fees,
the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over its permissive counterclain and the decision redered
by the RTC is null and void.
RE: GSIS’ CLAIM THAT IT IS EXEMPTED FROM ALL KINDS OF FEES
FACTS: GSIS claimed that it is exempted to pay all kinds of fees as provided for in its charter,
specifically Section 39 of RA 8291.
HELD: In In In Re: Petition for Recognition of the Exemption of the Government Service
Insurance System from Payment of Legal Fees, the Court ruled that the provision in the Charter
of the GSIS, i.e., Section 39 of Republic Act No. 8291, which exempts it from "all taxes,
assessments, fees, charges or duties of all kinds," cannot operate to exempt it from the
payment of legal fees. This was because, unlike the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions, which
empowered Congress to repeal, alter or supplement the rules of the Supreme Court
concerning pleading, practice and procedure, the 1987 Constitution removed this power from
Congress. Hence, the Supreme Court now has the sole authority to promulgate rules
concerning pleading, practice and procedure in all courts.