Hernandez v DBP (Civil Procedure)

Jose M. Hernandez v. DBP and CFI of Batangas

Facts:
 Petitioner was an employee of defendant in its Legal Department for 21 years until his retirement due to illness;
 Petitioner was awarded a lot (810 sq-m, type E) in respondent’s Housing Project in Quezon City;
 However, more than a week thereafter, the Chief Accountant and Comptroller of the private respondent returned to
the petitioner the checks he has paid pursuant to such award and informed him that the private respondent, through its
Committee on Organization, Personnel and Facilities, had cancelled the award of the lot and hour previously awarded
on the ground that:
(a) He has already retired;
(b) He has only an option to purchase said house and lot;
(c) There are a big number of employees who have no houses or lots;
(d) He has been given his retirement gratuity; that the awarding of the aforementioned house and lot in his favor would
subserve the purpose;
 Petitioner protested the cancellation and so filed a complaint in the CFI of Batangas, seeking annulment of the
cancellation of the award of the lot and house in his favor and the restoration of all his rights thereto;
 He contends that it is illegal and unwarranted because he has already a vested right thereto because of the award;
 Private respondent filed a motion to dismiss based on improper venue, contending that since the petitioner’s action
affects the title to a house and lot in Quezon city, the same should have been commenced in the CFI of Quezon City
where the real property is located.

Lower court ruling:

CFI of Batangas: sustained the motion to dismiss based on improper venue.

*Case immediately elevated to the SC

Issue: WON the action of petitioner was improperly laid in the CFI of Batangas

Ruling: No, the case was not improperly filed in the CFI of Batangas.

The venue of actions or, more appropriately, the county where the action is triable depends to a great extent on the
nature of the action to be filed, whether it is real or personal.

Real action is one brought for the specific recovery of land, tenements, or hereditaments. A personal action is one
brought for recovery of personal property, for the enforcement of some contract or recovery of damages for its breach,
or for the recovery of damages for the commission of an injury to the person or property.

The court agrees that petitioner’s action is not a real but a personal action. As correctly insisted by petitioner, his
action is one to declare null and void the cancellation of the lot and house in his favor which does not involve title and
ownership over said properties but seeks to compel respondent to recognize that the award is a valid and subsisting
one which cannot arbitrarily and unilaterally cancel and accordingly to accept the proffered payment in full which it
had rejected and returned to petitioner.

Such an action is a personal action which may be properly brought by petitioner in his residence.

The dismissal is overturned and the suit is remanded for further proceedings.

Paderanga v Buissan (Civil Procedure)

 Jorge Paderanga v. Judge Buissan, CFI of Zamboanga and ELUMBA Industries Company

Facts:

 Petitioner and private respondent entered into an oral contract of lease for the use of a commercial space within a
building owned by petitioner in Ozamiz City;

 Petitioner subdivided the leased premises into 2 by constructing a party wall in between; petitioner alleged that it is
with the acquiescence of respondent but the same is refuted by the respondent;

 Private respondent instituted an action for damages and at the same time prayed for the fixing of the period of lease
at 5 years in the CFI of Zamboanga, Dipolog City;

 Petitioner, resident of Ozamiz City, moved for its dismissal contending that the action was a real action which should
have been filed with the CFI of Ozamiz City where the property questioned is located;

Lower court decisions:

CFI of Dipolog City: denied the motion to dismiss as the case merely involved the enforcement of the contract of
lease, and while affecting a portion of real property, there was no question of ownership raised. Hence, venue was
properly laid.

*When case reached the SC:

Petitioner – in as much as it is a recovery of possession of a portion of real property, the case should have been filed
in the CFI of Ozamiz City, where the said real property lies;

Respondent – the action is chiefly for damages arising from an alleged breach of lease of contract; hence, the issue
of recovery of possession is merely incidental. The action is one in personam and not in rem. Therefore venue must
be laid in the place where plaintiff or defendant resides at the option of plaintiff.

Issue: WON venue was properly laid in the CFI of Dipolog City

Ruling: No, the venue was improperly laid.

Private respondent appears to be confused over the difference between real action and personal action vis-à-vis
actions in personam and in rem.
The former determines venue; and the latter the binding effect of a decision the court may render over the party,
whether impleaded or not;

(Reiterated the usual definitions of Real Actions and Personal Action vis-à-vis action in personam and action in rem)

While it may be that the instant complaint does not explicitly pray for recovery of possession, such is the necessary
consequence thereof.

The instant petition does not efface the fundamental and prime objective of the nature of the case which is to
recover the one-half portion repossessed by the lessor, herein petitioner.

DEVELOPMENT BANK OF
RIZAL V. SIMA WEI
219 SCRA 736

FACTS:
Sima Wei executed a promissory note in consideration of a loan secured from petitioner
bank. She was able to pay partially for the loan but failed
to pay for the balance. She then issued two checks to pay the unpaid balance but for some
unexplainable reason, the checks were not received
by the bank but ended up in the hands of someone else. The bank
instituted actions against Sima Wei and other people. The trial court dismissed the case and
the CA affirmed this decision.

HELD:
A negotiable instrument, of which a check is, is not only a written evidence of a contract right but is
also a species of property. Just as a deed to a piece of land must be delivered in order to convey
title to the grantee, so must a negotiable instrument be delivered to the payee in order to
evidence its existence as a binding contract. Section 16 provides that every contract on a
negotiable instrument is incomplete and revocable until delivery of the instrument for the purpose of
giving effect thereto. Thus,
the payee of the negotiable instrument acquires no interest with respect thereto until its
delivery to him. Delivery of an instrument from the drawer to the payee, there can be no liability on
the instrument. Moreover, such delivery must be intended to give effect to the instrument.

Manchester Development vs Court

of Appeals
August 28, 2012
1 comment

 Facebook

 Twitter

 Pinterest

 LinkedIn

 Email

149 SCRA 562 – Remedial Law – Civil Procedure – Payment of Docket Fees – Claimed
Damages must be Stated in the BODY and PRAYER of pleadings
A complaint for specific performance was filed by Manchester Development Corporation
against City Land Development Corporation to compel the latter to execute a deed of sale in
favor Manchester. Manchester also alleged that City Land forfeited the former’s tender of
payment for a certain transaction thereby causing damages to Manchester amounting to
P78,750,000.00. This amount was alleged in the BODY of their Complaint but it was not
reiterated in the PRAYER of same complaint. Manchester paid a docket fee of P410.00 only.
Said docket fee is premised on the allegation of Manchester that their action is primarily for
specific performance hence it is incapable of pecuniary estimation. The court ruled that there
is an under assessment of docket fees hence it ordered Manchester to amend its complaint.
Manchester complied but what it did was to lower the amount of claim for damages to P10M.
Said amount was however again not stated in the PRAYER.
ISSUE: Whether or not the amended complaint should be admitted.
HELD: No. The docket fee, its computation, should be based on the original complaint. A
case is deemed filed only upon payment of the appropriate docket fee regardless of the actual
date of filing in court. Here, since the proper docket fee was not paid for the original complaint,
it’s as if there is no complaint to speak of. As a consequence, there is no original complaint
duly filed which can be amended. So, any subsequent proceeding taken in consideration of
the amended complaint is void.
Manchester’s defense that this case is primarily an action for specific performance is not
merited. The Supreme Court ruled that based on the allegations and the prayer of the
complaint, this case is an action for damages and for specific performance. Hence, it is
capable of pecuniary estimation.
Further, the amount for damages in the original complaint was already provided in the body
of the complaint. Its omission in the PRAYER clearly constitutes an attempt to evade the
payment of the proper filing fees. To stop the happenstance of similar irregularities in the
future, the Supreme Court ruled that from this case on, all complaints, petitions, answers and
other similar pleadings should specify the amount of damages being prayed for not only in
the body of the pleading but also in the prayer, and said damages shall be considered in the
assessment of the filing fees in any case. Any pleading that fails to comply with this
requirement shall not bib accepted nor admitted, or shall otherwise be expunged from the
record.