ISSUES:

a) Whether or not the amendment in paragraph 4 presents a counter claim to the

damages incurred by the petitioner.
It is evident that the amendment in paragraph 4 is a counterclaim for the damages on the
part of the petitioner. In the present case, the petitioner being the owner of the lot in
question, was deprived by respondents Castelos of the use and enjoyment of the subject
property.
The argument presented by the of respondents that the counterclaim sought to be included
as amendment to paragraph 4 must be filed as an original and separate action in the proper
court was dismissed due to lack of merit. It runs counter to a settled rule that in the
furtherance of justice, the Court should be liberal in allowing amendments to pleadings to
avoid multiplicity of suits and in order that the real controversies between the parties are
presented, their rights determined and the case decided on the merits without unnecessary
delay. 5
Given that there was no new cause of action or defense that was presented because it was
the same as the subject matter between parties in the ejectment. However, it was dismissed
not for lack of merit but due to lack of jurisdiction. The legal remedy available if the
amendment is not allowed would be another action would have to be instituted provided that
it was not barred against respondent Castelos. Hence, resulting to multiplicity of suits which
the law seeks to avoid to compel the parties to litigate all the issues in a single proceeding.
Evidently, the respondent Judge disregarded the above tenets when he denied the motion
for leave to amend the answer in the manner indicated.