Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Rule 17 Case 2 Blay vs. Bana

    Uploaded by

    Erwin Bernardino
    155 views1 page
    Blay filed a petition for nullity of marriage against Bana, who filed a counterclaim. Blay later withdrew his petition. Under the rules, Bana's counterclaim could still be adjudicated if she filed a manifestation within 15 days of the withdrawal. Bana did not file the manifestation. The CA erred in allowing Bana's counterclaim to be adjudicated, as she failed to file the required manifestation on time. The Supreme Court reversed, allowing Blay to withdraw his petition without prejudice to Bana pursuing her counterclaim separately.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Blay filed a petition for nullity of marriage against Bana, who filed a counterclaim. Blay later withdrew his petition. Under the rules, Bana's counterclaim could still be adjudicated if she filed a manifestation within 15 days of the withdrawal. Bana did not file the manifestation. The CA erred in allowing Bana's counterclaim to be adjudicated, as she failed to file the required manifestation on time. The Supreme Court reversed, allowing Blay to withdraw his petition without prejudice to Bana pursuing her counterclaim separately.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    155 views1 page

    Rule 17 Case 2 Blay vs. Bana

    Uploaded by

    Erwin Bernardino
    Blay filed a petition for nullity of marriage against Bana, who filed a counterclaim. Blay later withdrew his petition. Under the rules, Bana's counterclaim could still be adjudicated if she filed a manifestation within 15 days of the withdrawal. Bana did not file the manifestation. The CA erred in allowing Bana's counterclaim to be adjudicated, as she failed to file the required manifestation on time. The Supreme Court reversed, allowing Blay to withdraw his petition without prejudice to Bana pursuing her counterclaim separately.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    G.R. No.

    232189

    ALEX RAUL B. BLAY vs. CYNTHIA B. BANA,

    Facts:

    Blay filed a petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage before the RTC under Art. 36 of the Family
    Code. Bana filed an answer therein with compulsory counterclaim. Blay lost interest over the case and
    filed a Motion to Withdraw his petition. Invoking Sec. 2 of Rule 17 of the ROC, Bana opposed and prayed
    that the counterclaims be declared as remaining for the court's independent adjudication. Blay claimed
    that the counterclaims are barred from being prosecuted due to Bana’s to file a manifestation within 15
    days from notice of the Motion to Withdraw.

    The RTC granted Blay’s Motion to Withdraw and declared respondent's counterclaim "as remaining for
    independent adjudication". CA sustained the ruling.

    Issue:

    Whether Bana’s counterclaim can be independently adjudicated before the same trial court despite the
    case’s dismissal.

    Ruling:

    As per Section 2, Rule 17 of the ROC, if a counterclaim has been pleaded by the defendant prior to the
    service upon him of the plaintiff's motion for the dismissal the rule is that the dismissal shall be limited
    to the complaint. A dismissal of an action is different from a mere dismissal of the complaint. For this
    reason, since only the complaint and not the action is dismissed, the defendant inspite of said dismissal
    may still prosecute his counterclaim in the same acton."

    However, as stated in the third sentence of the same provision, if the defendant desires to prosecute his
    counterclaim in the same action, he is required to file a manifestation within fifteen (15) days from
    notice of the motion. Otherwise, his counterclaim may be prosecuted in a separate action.

    CA erroneously sustained the assailed RTC Orders declaring respondent’s counterclaim "as remaining for
    independent adjudication" despite the latter's failure to file the required manifestation within the
    prescribed fifteen (15)-day period. Thus, petition is reversed, granting Blay’s Motion to Withdraw his
    Petition without prejudice to the prosecution of Baña's counterclaim in a separate action.

    You might also like