SPOUSES DANILO and CRISTINA DECENA, petitioners, vs.

SPOUSES
PEDRO and VALERIA PIQUERO, respondents.

FACTS:
Petitioners Sps. Danilo and Cristina Decena were the owners of a parcel
of land, with a house constructed thereon, located in Paraaque.
On September 7, 1997, petitioners and the respondents Sps. Pedro and
Valeria Piquero, executed a MOA in which petitioners sold the property to the
respondents for P940,250 payable in six (6) installments via postdated
checks.
It appears in the MOA that petitioners obliged themselves to transfer the
property to the respondents upon the execution of the MOA with the
condition that if two of the postdated checks would be dishonored by the
drawee bank, the respondents would be obliged to reconvey the property to
the petitioners.
On May 17, 1999, the petitioners, then residents of Malolos, Bulacan,
filed a Complaint against the respondents with the RTC of Malolos for the
annulment of the sale/MOA, recovery of possession and damages alleging
that they did not transfer the property to and in the names of the respondents
as vendees because the first two checks drawn and issued by them in
payment for the purchase price of the property were dishonored by the
drawee bank, and were not replaced with cash despite demands. They
declared in their complaint that the property subject of the complaint valued
at P6, 900,000.
Respondents filed a MD on the ground of improper venue and lack of
jurisdiction over the property subject matter of the action. Respondents
averred that the principal action of the petitioners for the rescission of the
MOA, and the recovery of the possession of the property is a real action and
not a personal one; hence, it should have been brought in the RTC of
Paraaque City, where the property subject matter of the action was located,
and not in the RTC of Malolos, Bulacan, where the petitioners resided.
In opposition, the petitioners insisted that their action for damages and
attorneys fees is a personal action and not a real action; hence, it may be
filed in the RTC of Bulacan where they reside. They averred that while their
second cause of action for the recovery of the possession of the property is a
real action, the same may, nevertheless, be joined with the rest of their
causes of action for damages, conformably with Section 5(c), Rule 2 of the
Rules of Court.
By way of reply, the respondents averred that Section 5(c), Rule 2 of the
Rules of Court applies only when one or more of multiple causes of action

falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the first level courts, and the other or
others are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC, and the venue lies
therein.
On February 9, 2000, trial court denied the motion for lack of
merit. When the case was re-raffled to Branch 10 of the RTC of Malolos,
respondents filed MR which the court granted and then ordered the dismissal
of the complaint. It ruled that the principal action of the petitioners was a
real action and should have been filed in the RTC of Paraaque City where
the property subject matter of the complaint was located.
Hence, the present recourse.
ISSUE: W/N venue was properly laid by petitioners in the RTC of Malolos.
HELD: NO. Section 5, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court invoked by the
petitioners does not apply. Under the said Rule, a party may, in one pleading,
assert, in the alternative or otherwise, as many causes of action as he may
have against an opposing party subject to the conditions therein enumerated,
one of which is Section 5(c) which reads: Joinder of causes of action. --(c)
Where the causes of action are between the same parties but pertain to
different venues or jurisdiction, the joinder may be allowed in the Regional
Trial Court provided one of the causes of action falls within the jurisdiction of
said court and the venue lies therein;
The petitioners, as plaintiffs in the court a quo, had only one cause of
action against the respondents, namely, the breach of the MOA upon the
latters refusal to pay the first two installments in payment of the property as
agreed upon, and turn over to the petitioners the possession of the real
property, as well as the house constructed thereon occupied by the
respondents. The claim for damages for reasonable compensation for the
respondents use and occupation of the property, in the interim, as well as
moral and exemplary damages suffered by the petitioners on account of the
breach of contract of the respondents are merely incidental to the main
cause of action, and are not independent or separate causes of action. The
action of the petitioners for the rescission of the MOA on account of the
respondents breach thereof and the latters failure to return the premises
subject of the complaint to the petitioners, and the respondents eviction
therefrom is a real action. As such, the action should have been filed in the
proper court where the property is located, namely, in Paraaque City,
conformably with Section 1, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court. Since the
petitioners, who were residents of Malolos, Bulacan, filed their complaint in
the said RTC, venue was improperly laid; hence, the trial court acted
conformably with Section 1(c), Rule 16 of the Rules of Court when it ordered
the dismissal of the complaint.