Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 171582 2015-08-19	ALBERTO T. LASALA v. NATIONAL FOOD AUTHORITY BRION, J.
To determine if a counterclaim is compulsory, the following tests apply: (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 plaintiffs 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.[51] Otherwise, it is permissive.
	GR No. 149017 2008-11-28	VALENTE RAYMUNDO v. TEOFISTA ISAGON VDA. DE SUAREZ NACHURA, J.
Marcelo and Teofista Isagon Suarez'[4] marriage was blessed with both material wealth and progeny in herein respondents, namely, Danilo,[5] Eufrocina, Marcelo Jr., Evelyn, and Reggineo,[6] all surnamed Suarez. During their marriage, governed by the conjugal partnership of gains regime, they acquired numerous properties, which included the following: (1) a parcel of land situated in Barrio Caniogan, Pasig with an area of 348 square meters covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 30680; (2) property located in Pinagbuhatan, Pasig, with an area of 1,020 square meters under Tax Declaration No. A-016-01003; and (3) Lot Nos. 5, 6 & 7, Block 2 covered by Tax Declaration No. A-01700723 (subject properties).