Professional Documents
Culture Documents
RULE 4 VENUE OF ACTIONS what is VENUE? place where an action muct be instituted and tried venue in REAL Actions- commenced and tried in the proper court which has jurisdiction over the area wherein the real property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated when is an action a real action? Actions affecting title to or possession of real property, or interest therein. what is A personal action? One that has privity to personal prop, enforcement of a contract and recovery of damages Section 1. Venue of real actions. Actions affecting title to or possession of real property, or interest therein, shall be commenced and tried in the proper court which has jurisdiction over the area wherein the real property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated. Forcible entry and detainer actions shall be commenced and tried in the municipal trial court of the municipality or city wherein the real property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated. Fortune Motors v CA Fortune motors had a loan w/ MBTC secured by REM. was not able to pay and was foreclosed sold at public auction w/ 1 yr redemption pd. 3 days before the expiry of redemption pd Fortune filed an action for the annulment of sale in RTC Manila. MBTC motion to dismiss-venue improperly laid in Manila being a real action it shld have been filed in Makati where the property is located. Is an action for annulment of REM a personal or real action? it does not involve any title or possession the right of ME is only inchoate and will only arise if there is a foreclosure share. Held: it was a real action bec it is a recovery of title thus RTC Makati has jurisdiction. ACTION TO ANNUL SALE OF REAL PROPERTY; RECOVERY THEREOF THE PRIMARY OBJECTIVE. While it is true that petitioner does not directly seek the recovery of title or possession of the property in question, his action for annulment of sale and his claim for damages are closely intertwined with the issue of ownership of the building which, under the law, is considered immovable property, the recovery of which is petitioner's primary objective. The prevalent doctrine is that an action for the annulment or rescission of a sale of real property does not operate to efface the fundamental and prime objective and nature of the case, which is to recover said real property. It is a real action. Respondent Court, therefore, did not err in dismissing the case on the ground of improper venue (Sec. 2, Rule 4) which was timely raised Torres vs Tuazon12 S 74- p. 616 paras action for specific performance and asked deed of sale to be issued to him and TCT be issued to him. Plaintiff filed an action in Manila praying that JM Tuazon and Co be able to execute a deed of Sale. Agreement that ARanetas will pay Dudors. Action of plaintiff is to require Tuazons and ARaneta to execute a deed of Sale which he bought fr X w/c he bought fr the action to compel execution of deed of sale shld be filed in QC. Motion to dismiss. Plaintiff said that they are simply asking to comply with the agreement. SC. the fact that plaintiff that deed of sale be executed showed the it aims to recover real prop thus it revolves in issue of ownership DR. ANTONIO A. LIZARES, INC., vs. HON. HERMOGENES CALUAG, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Quezon City, and FLAVIANO CACNIO Cacnio bought land in installment fr Lizares, and w/o reason Lizares refused to accept his pyt and threatens Cacnio to repossess the land. Cacnio filed a cs in CFI Rizal Quezon praying that defendant be ordered to accept pyt- saying that it was a personal action. Property is in Bacolod. Held: real action- his action is intertwined to the title in the property and possession thereof. it is only the st immediate and 1 step to his title to the property JOSE M. HERNANDEZ, petitioner, vs. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES and COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF BATANGAS, LIPA CITY BRANCH action to annul the cancellation of award. Hernandez was awarded a house n lot, to be paid in mo installment. He issued a check in pyt thereof only to be informed that the award was already cancelled bec he is no longer entitled bec he already retired. Filed an action to annul the cancellation of award given to him, he filed it in CFI Batangas where he resides. Motion to dismiss due to improper venue was filed by DBP saying that it is a real action thus shld be in QC were prop is located. Held: Personal Action. Not an issue of ownership or title to real prop but merely seeks defendant to recognize the award previously given Cant we say in this cs and that of Lizares, that the action st is only a 1 step? In Lizares, it was a Contract to SELL, it is a contract to sell in the future. Is there an instance that a promise to sell can no longer be withdrawn? If a promise is not
'legal residence or domicile." Even where the statute uses the word "domicile," still it construed as meaning residence and not "domicile" in the technical sense. Some cases make a distinction between the terms "residence and "domicile," but as generally used in statutes fixing venue, the terms are synonymous and convey the same meaning as the term "inhabitant ". In other words, "resides" should be viewed or understood in its popular sense, meaning, the personal, actual or physical habitation of a person, actual residence or place of abode. Esuerte v CA Tan a Jr resident of a Hospital was complained by Esuerte a head nurse for shouting and humiliating her w/o justifiable reason. Tan was requested by the hospital to explain her side but instead filed a case in Cebu- RTC for damages. Motion to dismiss for improper venue and exhaustion of admin remedies. Held: Tan is a legal resident of Cebu. Her parents live there but at the time of the incident she is residing in Bacolod City bec of work as well as the petitioners. the issue arose also in Bacolod. case shld have been filed in Bacolod. the controversy arose in Bacolod City, where he actual stays, physical residence, actual and place of abode. In Koh v. CA, L-40428, December 17, 1975, 70 SCRA 298; 305, We ruled: "Applying the foregoing observation to the present case, We are fully convinced that private respondent Coloma's protestations of domicile in San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte, based on his manifested intention to return there after the retirement of his wife from government service to justify his bringing of an action for damages against petitioner in the C.F.I. of Ilocos Norte, is entirely of no moment since what is of paramount importance is where he actually resided or where he may be found at the time he brought the action, to comply substantially with the requirements of Sec. 2(b) of Rule 4, Rules of Court, on venue of personal actions . . ." As perspicaciously observed by Justice Moreland, the purpose of procedure is not to restrict the court's jurisdiction over the subject matter but to give it effective facility "in righteous action," "to facilitate and promote the administration of justice" or to insure "just judgments" by means of a fair hearing. If the objective is not achieved, then "the administration of justice becomes incomplete and unsatisfactory and lays itself open to criticism." (Manila Railroad Co. v. Attorney General, 20 Phil. 523, 530). Can a non-resident be sued? Yes. provided that it involves the personal status of the plaintiff, or any property of the defendant located in th