G.R. No. 155701 - LIM TECK CHUAN, VS. SERAFIN UY AND LEOPOLDA CECILIO, LIM SING CHAN @ HENRY LIM.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, this Honorable Court is most respectfully prayed and humbly implored to dismiss the Complaint and the respective counterclaims of the defendants in the case at bench. [24] On October 4, 2001, the petitioner filed his Opposition/Comment [25] praying for the denial of the Joint Motion to Dismiss on the ground of bad faith, and to prohibit Serafin and Leopolda from undertaking any further transaction involving the subject lot. The pertinent portion of his opposition reads as follows: 1. That the [petitioner] opposes the Joint Motion to Dismiss filed by [Serafin] and [Leopolda] on the grounds: 1.1 that there [is] BAD FAITH on the part of [Serafin] and [Leopolda]; 1.2. That the [petitioner] was not involved in any amicable settlements between [Serafin] and [Leopolda] because both [Serafin] and [Leopolda] connived to MISLEAD this Honorable Court and to DEFRAUD the estate of [Antonio]; 1.3. That the [petitioner] has valid counterclaims against [Serafin] for moral damages of P 5,000,000[.00]; exemplary damages of P 1,200,000[.00]; and Attorneys fees of P 50,000[.00]; on the ground that [Serafin] maliciously and deliberately presented to this Honorable Court the FALSIFIED AND FICTITIOUS deed of sale PURPORTEDLY executed by [Antonio] in favor of [Francisco]; 1.4. That the [petitioner] has valid cross[-]claims against Cross-defendants Lim Sing Chan alias Henry Lim whose real name is Henry Lim Ormoc, and [Leopolda] for moral damages of P 5,000,000[.00] each, attorneys fees of P 50,000[.00] each, and exemplary damages of P 1,000,000[.00] for [Henry] and P 1,600,000[.00] for [Leopolda] because [Henry] and [Leopolda] connived with each other to defraud the estate of [Antonio] on the ground that [Henry] MISREPRESENTED himself as an heir of [Antonio] while [Leopolda] has KNOWLEDGE of such MISREPRESENTATION; 1.5. That the [petitioner] manifest[s] to this Honorable Court of his preference that the above-counterclaims and cross-claims be resolved in the present case[.] [26] The petitioner further averred that the transfer of Antonios title under TCT No. T-0500 in the name of Serafin is irregular and illegal since the true owners copy of TCT No. T-0500 remained in his possession. Henry continued to remain silent. On October 10, 2001, Serafin filed his Reply [27] to the comment/opposition of the petitioner. He substantially averred that: With the end in view of registering Lot 5357 in his name, he instituted the instant case due to the existence of certain documents affecting his title thereto, namely: Henrys Affidavit of Self-Adjudication with Deed of Sale dated August 2, 1996 naming Leopolda as the buyer, and Tax Declaration No. 01532 issued in the name of the latter; Under his Affidavit of Self-Adjudication , Henry already transferred whatever right and interest he had on the subject lot to Leopolda. On the other hand, by reason of the amicable settlement between him (Serafin) and Leopolda, the latter waived and abandoned all her rights to Lot 5