GR 166964; (October, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 166964 October 11, 2005
Patricia L. Tiongson, et al., represented by Rosa R. Manotok, Petitioners, vs. National Housing Authority, Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent National Housing Authority (NHA) filed a complaint for eminent domain over petitioners’ properties in Tonto, Manila. Petitioners filed motions to dismiss instead of an answer. NHA deposited provisional just compensation with a bank. The trial court dismissed NHA’s complaint, finding the expropriation was not for public purpose, and also dismissed petitioners’ compulsory counterclaim for damages. This dismissal became final and executory in 1993 after NHA failed to timely appeal.
Seven years later, in 2000, NHA filed a motion to withdraw its deposit. The trial court initially ordered a hearing, noting petitioners might have sustained damages from the failed expropriation. NHA appealed this order. The Court of Appeals reversed, directing the release of the deposit to NHA. It ruled that the dismissal of the counterclaim barred petitioners from proving damages, and their long inaction forfeited any claim.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ordering the release of NHA’s deposit to it without a hearing to determine petitioners’ alleged damages from the dismissed expropriation case.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The legal logic is anchored on the nature of compulsory counterclaims and the finality of judgments. Petitioners’ counterclaim for damages was compulsory, being auxiliary to and deriving its life from the main expropriation complaint. Under established doctrine, when a compulsory counterclaimant actively seeks and obtains the dismissal of the main complaint, it constitutes an implied waiver of that counterclaim. The grant of petitioners’ motion to dismiss resulted in the dismissal of their counterclaim.
This outcome is distinct from cases where a court, in dismissing an expropriation complaint, expressly reserves the property owner’s right to prove damages. Here, the trial court’s 1991 decision dismissed the counterclaim without any such reservation. That decision became final. Petitioners had seven years from its finality to actively pursue their claim for damages but failed to do so. Their inaction precludes them from now asserting a deprivation of due process. Consequently, with no outstanding claim against the deposited sum, NHA is entitled to its return.