RECONVENTION. – It is the action that the defendant brings against the plaintiff, thereby becoming a plaintiff in the same reconventional action. According to this general concept, the consequence follows that in the process initiated by the plaintiff, a judgment is inserted aimed at ascertaining, discussing, and resolving the reconventional claim.
Naturally, however, an understanding of the reconventional claim cannot be so broad as to allow the defendant to bring any other claim against the plaintiff. For example, one who is sued by his wife for a declaration of nullity of marriage cannot reconvene the plaintiff for the return of a sum loaned, nor can one who is sued for eviction bring a claim of disavowal of paternity. Clearly, it is not enough that the defendant has some claim against the plaintiff; it is also necessary that the claim forming the subject of the reconventional action be connected to an objective element of the plaintiff’s claim, sharing with it not only the parties (plaintiff and defendant) but also the *petitum* or the *causa petendi* or both.
This is the concept of reconvention now accepted by canonist doctrine, whereby reconvention is essentially a case of objective connection of causes, respectively brought by the plaintiff and the defendant (can. 1567). Indeed, can. 1690, in defining reconvention as «the action which the defendant institutes before the same judge in the same trial against the plaintiff to remove or diminish his claim», seems to restrict the concept of reconvention to the exception of set-off and related reconventional action. But this is only one case, a typical case, which does not exclude reconvention for other reasons of objective connection of actions.
Mindful of the brevity of trials, the canon lawmaker prevents the perpetuation of disputes by prohibiting *reconventio* (can. 1690 § 2).
Reconvention is admitted in all contentious cases, with the exception of spoliation cases, based on the principle: *spoliatus ante omnia restituendus*. Can. 1691, by excluding reconvention in criminal cases, says something that can have only historical significance, not certainly scientific, since it is now well known that criminal action is public, i.e., of the promoter of justice and not of the injured parties or complainants, and that therefore a *reconventio criminalis* is simply inconceivable. Persisting, however, in historical memory and still confusing reconvention with set-off, can. 1691 refers to can. 2218 § 3, *in re criminali*, whereby *mutua iniuria* – but only for the crimes of insult and defamation – is compensated.
The procedural effects of reconvention are, first, that the defendant assumes the role of plaintiff with respect to it, along with the corresponding procedural obligations. The competence of the judge, even if delegated *ad unam causam*, is automatically extended, unless the controversy brought by the reconventional claim falls, due to absolute limits, within the competence of a higher judge; in which case the entire case must be referred to the latter.
The reconventional claim may be brought, pursuant to can. 1690, at any stage of the first-instance trial, but before judgment is rendered; and this too is a serious inconvenience, which may, however, be temporarily remedied by the application of the second paragraph of the same canon, namely: «Let them be known together with the conventional action, that is, on an equal footing with it, unless it is necessary to know them separately or the judge deems it more opportune». In the appellate stage, however, reconvention is inadmissible (can. 1891). Should a question arise regarding the admissibility of the reconventional claim, an *incident question* (*quaestio incidens*) will be raised and handled in the ordinary form of incidental proceedings (can. 1837 and following).
**