LIM TECK CHUAN, PETITIONER, VS. SERAFIN UY, RESPONDENT.G.R. NO. 155701, March 11, 2015, REYES, J. KEY DOCTRINE: The dismissal of the complaint does not necessarily result to the dismissal of the counterclaim. A piece of land in Lapu lapu City Cebu known as Lot 5357 is owned and registered under the name of Antonio Lim Tanhu married to Dy Ochay. The said lot was sold by Antonio to Spouses Cabansag but the latter failed to transfer the title to their names. The Spouses Cabansag later sold the lot to Serafin. The Spouses Cabansag tried to transfer the property in their names first in order to transfer title to Serafin but the owner’s copy of TCT was lost. Serafin then filed a petition before RTC praying for the issuance of new owner’s duplicate TCT in his name. Serafin’s petition was granted but was recalled and nullified later on the ground that petitioner Chuan filed an Opposition and/or Motion for Reconsideration with Manifestation for Special Appearance alleging that he is one of the 6 legitimate descendants of Antonio and that the original owner’s copy of TCT was not lost and has always been in his custody. In the meantime, Henry Lim executed an Affidavit of Sole Adjudication/Settlement of Estate of Antonio Lim Tanhu with Deed of Sale claiming that he is the only surviving heir of Antonio and Lot 5357 was sold by Henry to Leopolda. Serafin then filed a complaint for quieting of title and for the nullity of the affidavit of adjudication and sale. Leopolda, filed her Answer with counterclaim and cross – claim against Henry asserting that she was a buyer in good faith and for value. Petitioner Chuan averred in his Answer with counterclaim and cross – claims against Leopolda and Henry that lot 5357 was never transferred no encumbered to any person during Antonios life. During the pre tiral conference, the parties agreed to the issue of whether or not defendants Leopolda and Chuan have valid counterclaims against the plaintiff. The initial trial of the case was reset and then Serafin and Leopolda submitted a Joint Motion to Dismiss where Leopolda has agreed to waive her counterclaim for damages in the instant case; Serafin has secured already a certificate of title to lot 5357 in his name and that whatever claim Chuan may have on said lot may be an appropriate independent action. Petitioner Chuan filed his Opposition praying for the denial of the Joint Motion to Dismiss on the ground of bad faith and claiming that he has valid counterclaims against Serafin for moral and exemplary damages including attorney’s fees. It cannot . He asserts that within 15days from notice of the filing of the joint motion to dismiss. A dismissal of an action is different from a mere dismissal of the complaint. on the main ground that the case had become moot and academic since his title to lot 5357 had been allegedly quieted and the reliefs prayed for were obtained. the defendant in spite of said dismissal may still prosecute his counterclaim in the same action. petitioner expressed his preference to have his counterclaim and cross – claim prosecuted in the same case. Since the same were the very documents that casrs clouds on Serafin’s title. The RTC erred when it dismissed the case when the present rule state that the dismissal shall be limited only to the complaint. her waiver egated all the legal consequences of Tax Declaration and Henry’s affidavit of self-adjudication. as far as Leopolda is concerned. In the Opposition to the Joint Motion to Dismiss. From the case’s inception. The court should have limited its action to the dismissal of complaint. The Motion for Reconsideration of petitioner was denied so he filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. The RTC interpreted that what is contemplated under the Rules authorizing the hearing of defendant’s counterclaim is when the dismissal is not at the instance of the plaintiff. faulting the RTC for dismissing the case in its entirety in spite of his counterclaim and cross – claim.Serafin filed his Reply to petitioner Chuan and averred that by reason of the amicable settlement between him and Leopolda. the latter waived and abandoned all rights to the lot. ISSUE: Whether or not the dismissal of the complaint specifically upon motion of the plaintiff under Sec. The RTC granted the Joint Motion to Dismiss upon the behest of Serafin. the petitioner’s interest and that of his siblings over the subject property were vigilantly defended as evidenced by the numerous and exchange of pleadings made by the parties. The petitioner filed a Motion to Implead Indispensable parties (Spouses Cabansag) and Supplemental Opposition to Joint Motion to Dismiss. his main causes of action in the case at bench had become moot and academic as the title to the said lot had been quieted. 2 of Rule 17 RoC also calls for the dismissal of the defendant’s counterclaim? RULING: NO. Ergo. he filed his opposition thereto and expressed his preference to have his counterclaim and cross – claim be resolved in the same action. Since only the complaint and not the action is dismissed. RTC granted only the motion to dismiss and ordered the case dismissed so with the respective counterclaims of the defendants. Thus.therefore be denied that the petitioner has certainly valid defenses and enforceable claims against the respondents for being dragged into this case. . 2 Rule 17 or RoC. petitioner’s manifestation of his preference to have his counterclaim prosecuted in the same action is valid and in accordance with Sec.