DEMETRIO CARPENA, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS, VS. LUCIANO MANALO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES.

Beatriz Manalo and her common-law-husband, Luciano Manalo, were co-owners of
Lot 74 of the Calamba-Cadastre covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No.
16833. On November 5, 1947 Beatriz sold her one-half interest therein (Exhibit
B) to the spouses Demetrio Carpena and Salud Catindig for the sum of P5,000.00.
To keep the transaction from Luciano, the sale was made in the neighboring town
of Sta. Rosa, Laguna, and the parties agreed that Beatriz would remain in
possession of the property but with the obligation of paying the land taxes due
thereon. On May 22, 1948 Beatriz and Luciano were married, but she died three
months thereafter.

On August 30, 1948 the deed of sale was registered and, as a result, TCT No.
16833 was cancelled and TCT No. 2004 was issued in the name of the Carpena
spouses for the portion purchased by them, which was identified as Lot No. 74-B
of sub-division plan Psd-23230. Upon the death of their vendor, the Carpenas
notified Luciano of the sale and besides demanded of him the possession of Lot
74-B, but the latter, instead of acquiescing thereto, filed an action against
them to annul the sale made in their favor by Beatriz and to have himself
declared owner of the property subject matter thereof (Civil Case No. 9194).
Defendent’s answer in said case alleged, as defense, that the sale in their
favor was valid and that by virtue of the same they became owners of the
property subject matter thereof. Consequently, they prayed for the dismissal of
the case and for damages. The case was dismissed by the lower court after a
trial on the merits and on appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the
dismissal.

It appears that in 1945 a barong-barong was erected on Lot 74-B by a tenant
occupying the same. Two years thereafter the building was sold to Beatriz Manalo
for P200.00, and thereafter said improvement, with an assessed value of P150.00,
was declared in her name for taxation purposes. After her death, Luciano Manalo
and their children continued to occupy said house, making considerable
improvements thereon in the years 1952 and 1953, but in December 1954 Luciano
Manalo sold it to Pelagia Cailles Vda. de Unson and Beronica Capareda who began
occupying the same on April 2, 1955.

The present action was commenced on April 11, 1955 in the Court of First
Instance of Laguna by the Carpena spouses against Luciano Manalo, Pelagia
Cailles Vda. de Unson and Beronica Capareda to recover the possession of Lot
74-B and the house erected thereon as well as reasonable rental for its use and
occupancy from August 1, 1948. Appellees herein alleged in their answer that the
sale executed by Beatriz Manalo in favor of appellants covered only Lot 74-B and
not the house erected thereon.

While the case was pending in the lower court, or more specifically on April
17, 1955, appellees, without the consent of appellants, moved the house in
question to the adjoining lot, which compelled the latter to file a supplemental
complaint to recover from the former the sum of P2,500.00 representing the value
of the house, plus attorney’s fees.

As appellees had already vacated Lot 74-B, the lower court, after trial on
the merits, rendered judgment declaring appellants the owners of the house in
question and sentencing appellees to pay appellants the sum of P1,000.00
representing the fair market value thereof. Appellants’ claim for damages for
the use and occupancy of the premises was, however, dismissed for not having
been set up in Civil Case No. 9194, the same being a compulsory counterclaim.
The present is their appeal from this portion of the decision of the lower
court.

As stated above, the purpose of the action filed by Luciano Manalo (Civil
Case No. 9194 of the Court of First Instance of Laguna) was to annul the sale
made by his wife, Beatriz Manalo, in favor of the Carpena spouses and to recover
ownership of the property subject matter thereof. The rents which appellants now
seek to collect from the appellees were for the occupancy of said property and
of the house constructed thereon. Had the sale been annulled, it would have
meant that the Carpenas, appellants herein, had no right to collect rents from
the occupants of the lot and of the house aforesaid, while if the court
sustained the validity of the sale, they )would have had such right. It is thus
obvious that the claim which they seek to enforce now was, to say the least, a
matter necessarily connected with the transaction or occurrence subject matter
of the complaint filed against them in Civil Case No. 9194. It follows that the
same constituted a compulsory counterclaim which they should have pleaded in
their answer filed in the aforesaid case.

In Berses vs. Villanueva, 25 Phil., 473, it was held that in action
for the recovery of a parcel of land, the defendant must set up a counterclaim
for the value of improvements made or introduced by him on the property,
otherwise his claim would be barred. That this ruling applies to the present
case can not be disputed because the only difference between both cases is that
in the one before us the counterclaim is for rents for the occupancy of the land
sought to be recovered and of the house constructed thereon, instead of being—as
in the Berses case—for the recovery of the value of improvements made on the
property.

Appellants, however, argue that even assuming that their claim constituted a
mandatory counterclaim in relation to Civil Case No. 9194, still they could not
have pleaded it as such in said, case because it was not within the jurisdiction
of the Court of First Instance of Laguna where the case was pending. In this
connection they contend that their counterclaim against Luciano Manalo and his
co-plaintiffs would have been for unlawful detainer and the collection of one
month rent only, because when the action was commenced Manalo had been in
possession of the lot and house involved therein only for one month. This is not
entirely correct. The record on appeal filed by Manalo in the aforesaid case
shows that the defendants (appellants herein) filed an answer in which they
alleged that they were “the true and lawful owners of the parcel of land”
subject matter of the action by virtue of the deed of sale executed in their
favor by Beatriz Manalo, upon the registration of which a transfer certificate
of title was issued in their name. Their answer also interposed a counterclaim
in which they incorporated all the allegations made in their answer and further
alleged that the plaintiffs had filed the action against them maliciously, thus
causing them damage in the sum of P2,000.00. Said answer prayed not only for the
dismissal of the complaint but also for judgment “declaring said defendants as
true and lawful owners of the property in question” (Exhibit C, pp. 18-23). It
is obvious therefore that, for all legal purposes, appellants had, by way of
counter claim, filed an acción reivindicatoria which, of eourse, necessarily
included the question of possession. This notwithstanding, they failed to claim
rents or compensation for the use and occupancy of the lot and house subject
matter of the complaint filed against them. The right to collect these rents or
reasonable compensation being merely incidental to the counterclaim, it seems
clear that the fact that the amount thereof was less than the jurisdictional
amount for the Court of First Instance of Laguna did not deprive, said court of
authority to take cognizance of the same.

Lastly, appellants contend that there was absolutely no mutuality of claims
because the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 9194 were Luciano Manalo and the heirs
of his deceased wife, whereas the claim for rents in the present case is
directed, jointly and severally, against Luciano Manalo, Pelagia Cailles Vda. de
Unson and Beronica Capareda. This is likewise untenable because a party may not
evade the effect of the doctrine of res judicata by simply including
additional parties in the subsequent litigation or by not including as parties
in the latter persons who were parties in the previous suit.

In view of the foregoing, the decision appealed from is affirmed, with
costs.

Bengzon, Acting C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador,
Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., and Paredes, JJ., concur.