Rosales Wee was the owner of a commercial lot.

v. CA Petitioner Rosales was theoccupant of a certain

portion of this property by virtue of a lease
agreement. Pursuant to this LA, Rosales
constructed a commercial building. Wee died.
His estate through his son on several occasions
requested petitioner to vacate the lot but the
latter refused despite the termination of the term
of the lease, Hence, the estate of Wee filed an
action for ejectment against petitioner. In the
complaint for unlawful detainer, private
respondent alleged that petitioner occupied the
property by virtue of a lease agreement but the
substance of the LA was not set forth in the
complaint and no copy of the LA was attached
as an exhibit, a violation of Rule 8(7) of the RoC,
the rule on actionable documents.

WON the MTC

erred in not
motu propio
dismissing the
complaint for
failure to
comply with the
rule on
actionable
documents YES

Sepulveda Dulce (Pelaez dead mom) and her uncles,

Jr. v.
Pedro and Santiago, were the co-owners of
Pelaez many parcels of land, which they inherited
from Dulces grandmother. Each has an
undivided 1/3 share thereof .Pedro executed a
Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of the City of
Danao, and Pelaez demands his share in the
proceeds of the sale of the property. RTC:
private respondents action for reconveyance
based on constructive trust had not yet
prescribed when the complaint was filed; that
he was entitled to a share in the proceeds of
the sale of the property to Danao City; and that
the partition of the subject property among the
adjudicatees thereof was in order. The
petitioner appealed the decision to the. CA
affirmed.

WON RTC's
judgment was
properly
rendered- NO,
since
indispensable
parties were not
impleaded

The presence of all

indispensable parties is a
condition sine qua non for the
exercise of judicial power. It is
precisely when an
indispensable party is not
before the court that the action
should be dismissed. Thus, the
plaintiff is mandated to implead
all the indispensable parties,
considering that the absence of
one such party renders all
subsequent actions of the court
null and void for want of
authority to act, not only as to
the absent parties but even as
to those present

Spouses
Mendiola v.
Court of
Appeals,

WON Makati
case could
prosper
independently
of the Manila
case. NO,
Makati case is
barred and
should be
dismissed on
ground of res
judicata and
waiver

A counterclaim is compulsory
if: (a) it arises out of or is
necessarily connected with the
transaction or occurrence
which is the subject matter of
the opposing partys claim; (b)
it does not require for its
adjudication the presence of
third parties of whom the court
cannot acquire jurisdiction; and
(c) the court has jurisdiction to
entertain the claim both asto its
amount and nature, except that
in an original action before the
RTC, the counterclaim may be
considered compulsory
regardless of the amount.

Shell entered into an agreement for the

distribution of Shell petroleum products by
Pacific belonging to Mendiola. To secure
Pacifics performance of its obligations,
petitioners executed a real estate mortgage
in favor of Shell. Pacific ultimately defaulted,
impelling Shell to commence extrajudicial
foreclosure proceedings. Having received a
notice of the extrajudicial foreclosure,
petitioners proceeded to the announced
venue on the scheduled date and time but
did not witness any auction being conducted.
They later learned that the auction had been
held as and that their mortgaged realty had
been sold. After application of the proceeds
of the sale to the obligation of Pacific, a
deficiency remained which was not paid and
so Shell sued for recovery in RTC Manila.
Ramon answered with a counterclaim**.
Petitioners then commenced in RTC Makati
an action to annul the extrajudicial
foreclosure. Pending the trial of the Makati
case, Manila RTC rendered its judgment in
favor of Shell. Makati RTC then decided in
favor of the spouses.

1. Sec.3A equips MTC judges

with the relatively unfettered
discretion to immediately
dismiss a complaint for any of
the grounds mentioned therein
without prior need of an
opposing party calling attention
thereto
2. Well-settled is the rule that
forcible entry and detainer
cases being summary in nature
and involving disturbance of
social order, procedural
technicalities should be
carefully avoided and should
not be allowed to override
substantial justice.

Rules of Summary Procedure, SEC. 3.

Duty of court upon filing of complaint.
Upon the filing of the complaint, the
court, from a consideration of the
allegations thereof: A. may dismiss the
case outright due to lack of jurisdiction,
improper venue, failure to state a cause
of action, or for any other valid ground
for the dismissal of a civil action;

**In the Manila case, Ramon averred a

compulsory counterclaim asserting that
the extrajudicial foreclosure of the
mortgage had been devoid of basis in
fact and in law and that the foreclosure
and the filing of the action were made in
bad faith, with malice, fraudulently and in
gross and wanton violation of his rights.
His pleading thereby showed that the
cause of action he later pleaded in the
Makati case - that of annulment of the
foreclosure sale - was identical to the
compulsory counterclaim he had set up
in the Manila case.