ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
November-1939 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 44260 November 2, 1938 - MONTE DE PIEDAD Y CAJA DE AHORROS DE MANILA v. MARIA PAZ MARCIANA GUIDOTE, ET AL.

    066 Phil 432

  • G.R. No. 46375 November 2, 1938 - GERONIMO SANTIAGO v. HERMENEGILDO ATIENZA, ET AL.

    066 Phil 436

  • G.R. No. 44372 November 3, 1938 - BENITO GARCIA v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    066 Phil 441

  • G.R. No. 44493 November 3, 1938 - MARIANO ANGELES v. ELENA SAMIA

    066 Phil 444

  • G.R. No. 46270 November 3, 1938 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS L. DE LA PEÑA

    066 Phil 451

  • G.R. No. 46085 November 4, 1938 - BULACAN BUS COMPANY, INC. v. FERNANDO ENRIQUEZ

    066 Phil 454

  • G.R. No. 44552 November 7, 1938 - ONG LIONG TIAK v. LUNETA MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL.

    066 Phil 459

  • G.R. No. 44634 November 9, 1938 - BALTAZAR ALUNEN, ET AL. v. TILAN

    066 Phil 463

  • G.R. No. 44778 November 9, 1938 - PROVINCE OF TAYABAS v. SIMEON PEREZ, ET AL.

    066 Phil 467

  • G.R. No. 44802 November 16, 1938 - FRANCISCO SABAS v. FRANCISCO GARMA, ET AL.

    066 Phil 471

  • G.R. No. 44843 November 17, 1938 - CARLOS YOUNG v. FRANCISCO M. BLANCO

    066 Phil 475

  • G.R. No. 44911 November 21, 1938 - ALEJANDRO IBARRA v. SEGUNDO AGUSTIN

    066 Phil 481

  • G.R. No. 44257 November 22, 1938 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. HONGKONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION, ET AL.

    066 Phil 483

  • G.R. No. 45792 November 22, 1938 - SWAN, CULBERTSON & FRITZ v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, ET AL.

    066 Phil 525

  • G.R. No. 45046 November 23, 1938 - PEOPLES BANK & TRUST CO. v. MANUEL OLONDRIZ, ET AL.

    066 Phil 537

  • G.R. No. 44518 November 23, 1938 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. YU GUICOC LAM

    066 Phil 542

  • G.R. No. 44837 November 23, 1938 - SOCORRO LEDESMA, ET AL. v. CONCHITA MCLACHLIN, ET AL.

    066 Phil 547

  • G.R. No. 44974 November 23, 1938 - W.S. PRICE v. CEFERINO YBANES, ET AL.

    066 Phil 552

  • G.R. No. 45028 November 25, 1938 - MAXIMO ABARY, ET AL. v. FIDELINO AGAWIN

    066 Phil 558

  • G.R. No. 44671 November 26, 1938 - MACONDRAY & CO., INC. v. ANTONIO E. RUIZ, ET AL.

    066 Phil 562

  • G.R. No. 44774 November 26, 1938 - FIDELITY AND SURETY CO. OF THE PHIL. v. ANGEL A. ANSALDO, ET AL.

    066 Phil 566

  • G.R. No. 44834 November 26, 1938 - LA PREVISORA FILIPINA v. FELIX Z. LEDDA

    066 Phil 573

  • G.R. No. 44947 November 26, 1938 - ANTONIO LABRADOR, ET AL. v. EMILIANO DE LOS SANTOS, ET AL.

    066 Phil 579

  • G.R. No. 45040 November 26, 1938 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. JULIO TUGAB

    066 Phil 583

  • G.R. No. 45105 November 26, 1938 - MACONDRAY & CO., INC. v. MACARIO JOSE

    066 Phil 590

  • G.R. No. 44602 November 28, 1938 - MARIA CALMA v. ESPERANZA TAÑEDO, ET AL.

    066 Phil 594

  • G.R. No. 44606 November 28, 1938 - VICENTE STO. DOMINGO BERNARDO v. CATALINO BATACLAN

    066 Phil 598

  • G.R. No. 44683 November 28, 1938 - JOAQUIN NAVARRO v. FERNANDO AGUILA, ET AL.

    066 Phil 604

  • G.R. No. 45070 November 28, 1938 - CHIN GUAN v. COMPAÑIA MARITIMA

    066 Phil 608

  • G.R. No. 45260 November 28, 1938 - BARBARA ECHAVARRIA v. ROMAN SARMIENTO, ET AL.

    066 Phil 611

  • G.R. No. 46267 November 28, 1938 - FRANCISCO ZANDUETA v. SIXTO DE LA COSTA

    066 Phil 615

  • G.R. No. 44931 November 29, 1938 - FELIX BILANG v. ERLANGER & GALINGER, INC.

    066 Phil 627

  • G.R. No. 45169 November 29, 1938 - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. PASAY TRANSPORTATION COMPANY

    066 Phil 630

  • G.R. No. 45344 November 29, 1938 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE P. ANCHETA, ET AL.

    066 Phil 638

  • G.R. No. 46040 November 29, 1938 - PAMPANGA BUS COMPANY, INC. v. FERNANDO ENRIQUEZ

    066 Phil 645

  • G.R. No. 46133 November 29, 1938 - PLACIDO ROSAL v. DIONISIO FORONDA, ET AL.

    066 Phil 650

  • G.R. No. 46174 November 29, 1938 - PAMPANGA BUS COMPANY, INC. v. FERNANDO ENRIQUEZ

    066 Phil 654

  • G.R. No. 46262 November 29, 1938 - CINE LIGAYA v. ALEJO LABRADOR, ET AL.

    066 Phil 659

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 44683   November 28, 1938 - JOAQUIN NAVARRO v. FERNANDO AGUILA, ET AL. <br /><br />066 Phil 604

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. 44683. November 28, 1938.]

    JOAQUIN NAVARRO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FERNANDO AGUILA and JUANITA AGUILA VIUDA DE REYES, Defendants-Appellants.

    Atienza & Umali, for Appellants.

    Abola & Rufino, for Appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    1. MORTGAGES; FORECLOSURE; VENUE OF ACTION OF FORECLOSURE SUIT. — The provision of section 254 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the effect that the action to foreclose a mortgage be brought in the Court of First Instance of the place where all or a part of the mortgaged property is found, being in favor of the mortgagor, said mortgagor may waive the same and stipulate that the action be brought in a place other than that in which the mortgaged real estate are found.


    D E C I S I O N


    VILLA-REAL, J.:


    This is an appeal taken by the defendants, Fernando Aguila and Juanita Aguila Viuda de Reyes, from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila, the dispositive part of which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Wherefore, the court renders judgment ordering, as it hereby orders, the defendant Fernando Aguila to pay to the plaintiff Joaquin Navarro: (1) the sum of two thousand five hundred pesos (P2,500), Philippine currency, with interest thereon at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from February 26, 1934 until fully paid; (2) the sum of three hundred seventy-five pesos (P375) as penalties for attorney’s fees; and (3) the costs of the suit. It is ordered that the said amounts be deposited with this court within the period of ninety days (90) from this date, to be paid to the plaintiff, and should the said deposit not be made within the said period, that the mortgaged properties be sold at public auction in accordance with law in satisfaction of this judgment, turning over any balance, should there be any, to the defendant Fernando Aguila. The defendant Juanita Aguila Viuda de Reyes is also ordered to pay subsidiarily the amounts aforesaid, but judgment will not be executed with respect to said defendant until after the sale of the properties of the principal debtor Fernando Aguila. So ordered."cralaw virtua1aw library

    As grounds of their appeal, the appellants assign the following alleged errors committed by the trial court in its aforesaid decision, to wit:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "1. The trial court erred in overruling the contention of the defendants to the effect that the said court was without jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit, hence, it likewise lacked jurisdiction to take cognizance of this case.

    "2. The trial court erred in not declaring void, illegal and without effect the last clause of paragraph (c) of appendix A of the complaint, which states: "and, provided, however, that the action for the collection or execution of this mortgage credit may be filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila, to whose jurisdiction I hereby submit."cralaw virtua1aw library

    "3. The trial court erred in rendering judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants, ordering the latter to pay the amount claimed in the complaint, despite the fact that said court was without jurisdiction to render said judgment."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The only facts which we can take into account in order to resolve the legal questions raised in this appeal are those which the trial court sets out in its decision as proven at the trial and those which are shown by the documentary evidence of record which form a part of its findings.

    The lower court in its decision states the following:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Passing to the merits of the case, the court finds the following proven facts: That on February 26, 1934 of the defendants executed the deed Exhibit A whereby Fernando Aguila acknowledged being indebted to the plaintiff in the amount of P2,500, binding himself to pay said amount to the plaintiff within the period of one year from said date, with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum and under the other conditions set out in the said document; that, to secure the payment of the aforesaid sum of P2,500, with interest thereon, and in compliance with the other conditions of the aforesaid loan, the defendant Fernando Aguila constituted a first mortgage one two (2) parcels of land belonging to him and described in the said deed Exhibit A; that the original of the aforesaid mortgage deed Exhibit A was seasonably registered in the office of the register of deeds of the Province of Batangas; that the defendants have failed to pay the stipulated interest from February 26, 1934, notwithstanding repeated demands to pay made by the plaintiff; that the defendant Juanita Aguila Viuda de Reyes became a subsidiary guarantor of her co-defendant; and that, in accordance with the same deed Exhibit A, for non-compliance or violation of any of the conditions of said mortgage and for failure to pay the interest corresponding of three consecutive months, the said mortgage obligation became due and demandable."cralaw virtua1aw library

    At the close of paragraph (c) of the mortgage deed Exhibit A, mentioned by the trial court in its decision, is found the following condition:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    ". . . and, provided, however, that the action for the collection or execution of this mortgage credit may be filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila, to whose jurisdiction I hereby submit."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The principal question to be decided in the present appeal is whether or not the contracting parties in a mortgage contract may agree to submit themselves to the jurisdiction of a court other than that of the place where the mortgaged property is situated.

    Section 254 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "SEC. 254. Where action for foreclosure of real estate mortgage must be instituted. — An action for the foreclosure of a mortgage or other incumbrance upon real estate, or an interest therein, must be brought in the Court of First Instance for the province in which the land or some part thereof lies."cralaw virtua1aw library

    In the case of Manila Railroad Co. v. Attorney-General (20 Phil., 523), this court laid down the following doctrine:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; LAYING OF VENUE IS PROCEDURAL. — The laying of the venue is procedural rather than substantive. It relates to the jurisdiction of the court over the person rather than the subject matter. Provisions of law relating to the same were not intended to take anything from the power of the court but, rather, to grant something to one or both of the parties. They establish a relation, not between the court and the subject matter, but between the plaintiff and the defendant.

    x       x       x


    "7. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; VENUE NOT CONNECTED WITH JURISDICTION; WAIVER BY PARTIES. — Venue is not connected with jurisdiction over the subject matter; and the defendants’ rights in respect thereto, as they are conferred by section 377 above referred to, may be waived expressly or by implication. Act No. 136 before referred to having conferred the fullest and completest jurisdiction possible upon Courts of First Instance relative to the real estate of the Islands, section 377 referred to will not be held or construed to restrict or limit that jurisdiction, it not containing express provisions to that end."cralaw virtua1aw library

    In providing in section 254 of the Code of Civil Procedure above- quoted, that actions for the foreclosure of real estate mortgages must be brought in the Court of First Instance for the province in which the mortgaged real property or a part thereof lies, it was undoubtedly the purpose of the legislator to protect the interest of the mortgagors, by having the sales of mortgaged properties carried out in the province where they are found and where the said mortgagors are known to the end that there be the most number of bidders and that the highest bid possible be obtained for the benefit of said mortgagors. The fact that the action for the foreclosure of a mortgage is brought in a Court of First Instance other than that of the province where the mortgaged property is found an the foreclosure of which is sought, does not defeat said purpose, because the sale has to be made in the province where the property is situated and by the sheriff of said province, after compliance with the requisites marked out by law (secs. 445, 449, Act No. 190). It being the personal right of the parties to bring an action in one or another court, they can stipulate as the place where the action is to be brought, even in the case of a foreclosure suit, as long as the court of the place agreed upon has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the litigation.

    For the foregoing considerations, we are the opinion and so hold that, the provision of section 254 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the effect that the action to foreclose as mortgage be brought in the Court of First Instance of the place where all or a part of the mortgaged property is found, being in favor of the mortgagor, said mortgagor may waive the same and stipulate that the action be brought in a place other than that in which the mortgaged real estate are found.

    Wherefore, not finding any error in the appealed judgment, the same is affirmed in all its parts, with the costs to the appellants. So ordered.

    Avanceña, C.J., Imperial, Diaz, Laurel and Concepcion, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. 44683   November 28, 1938 - JOAQUIN NAVARRO v. FERNANDO AGUILA, ET AL. <br /><br />066 Phil 604


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED