TOMAS BENAZA AND FRANCISCA JIMENEZ, PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLEES, VS. ZOILO BONILLA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

Civil Case No. A-91 of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan was
instituted on January 11, 1958 by appellees herein Tomas Benaza and his wife
Francisca Jimenez against Zoilo Bonilla, Juan Bonilla and Paulino Bonilla, to
recover from said defendants the possession of a parcel of land in barrio
Malimpin, municipality of Dasol, covered by Tranlfer Certificate of Title No.
19691 of the Registry of Deeds of Pangasinan, and to compel the defendants to
pay damages and attorney’s fees.

Defendants duly answered, pleading that originally, the property belonged to
one Catalino Mina and his wife, who had acquired it by way of homestead in 1927
and was issued Certificate of Title No. 773 for it; that by Notarial deed dated
19 August 1942, Mina and his wife sold the property to Zoilo Bonilla; that the
latter in 1953 donated the land to his three sons, Roberto, Juan and Paulino
Bonilla; that subsequently, Juan and Paulino transferred, their two-thirds
interest to Alberto Bonilla; that the defendants had improved the land and were
in possession thereof; and counterclaimed that the plaintiffs’ certificate No.
19691 was derived from Mina’s Original Homestead Certificate No. 773-H, through
Transfer Certificates Nos. 9241, and 9780; that Certificate No. 773 was
cancelled through fraud, and all subsequent certificates were null and void; and
asked the Court that the said subsequent certificates be annulled. Alberto
Bonilla, although not one of the original defendants, filed a third-party
complaint against Catalino Mina and his wife Vicenta Papuncio, for enforcement
of their warranty as vendors, and to compel them to pay whatever damages should
be recovered from the Bonillas; and to pay the value of the improvements
introduced by the latter in the disputed land.

Although Alberto Bonilla had not been formally allowed to intervene, Judge
Genaro Tan Torres admitted his third-party complaint “to avoid multiplicity of
suits.” Subsequently, the third-party complaint was amplified in a formidably
elaborate and intricate “Supplemental Answer to the Complaint” dated November 4,
1956, and apparently prepared without benefit of counsel, wherein in a long
recital of facts, interspersed with arguments, Alberto Bonilla asked for the
nullification of Transfer Certificates Nos. 9241 (issued in the name of Eulalia
Dimalanta), 9780 in the name of Rosario Dimalanta, and 19691, issued to Maximo
Tandoc, all of which were derived from the Certificate No. 773 of the original
owner Catalino Mina (Rec. of Appeal, pp. 35-45). This pleading was followed by a
“Motion to Declare Transfer Certificate of Title 19691 in the name of Tomas
Benaza, et al, Invalid”, which the Court of First Instance denied for obvious
reasons, no trial having been had.

On September 14, 1959, plaintiff Benaza moved to dismiss the action on the
ground that he was already in peaceful possession of the land in litigation. The
Bonillas opposed dismissal on account of their counterclaim and third-party
complaint. But Judge Jaime de los Angeles, who had suceeded Judge Tan Torres,
dismissed the case as prayed for by plaintiffs, declaring that the issues raised
in the counterclaim and third-party complaint should be litigated in a separate
proceeding.

From this order, the Bonillas appealed to this Court.

We find no error in the order of dismissal. It is self-evident that the
nullification of the three certificates of title 9241, 9780 and 19691 that
successively superseded the certificate of title of Catalino Mina, defendant’s
vendor, as fraudulent and void, can net be obtained upon a third-party complaint
against Mina and appellees Benaza only, without joining as defendants the
holders of the intervening certificates of title, Eulalia Dimalanta, Rosario
Dimalanta and Maximo Tandoc, and giving them an opportunity to defend their
acquisitions and actuations. Hence, neither the counterclaim nor the third-party
complaint, which were practically identical, constituted a legal obstacle to the
dismissal asked by plaintiffs, even upon the assumption that the contentions of
the Bonillas are true and correct, and that they are qualified to assail the
issuance of the various certificates of title, points which this Court does not
now pass upon (Rule 30, sec. 2).

It is also to be noted that appellants themselves, in their brief (p. 14),
admitted that “the issues presented in the counterclaim are separate and
distinct from the issues raised in the complaint.”

The appealed order of dismissal is affirmed. Costs against
appellants.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion,
Barrera, Paredes, and Dizon, JJ., concur.