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
 

   
May-1950 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-1597 May 5, 1950 - SANTIAGO SYJUCO, INC. v. PNB, ET AL

    086 Phil 320

  • G.R. No. L-2029 May 6, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN MONES

    086 Phil 331

  • G.R. No. L-2628 May 6, 1950 - ROQUE PARADO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    086 Phil 340

  • G.R. No. L-2124 May 10, 1950 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. JOSE O. DEMETRIO, ET AL

    086 Phil 344

  • G.R. No. L-2860 May 11, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO PALMON

    086 Phil 350

  • G.R. No. L-2640 May 12, 1950 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. LEON O. DE LOS REYES

    086 Phil 355

  • G.R. No. L-2400 May 18, 1950 - MARIA MACAPINLAC, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

    086 Phil 359

  • G.R. No. L-2487 May 18, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICO ELIZAGA, ET AL

    086 Phil 364

  • G.R. No. L-1721 May 19, 1950 - JUAN D. EVANGELISTA ET AL. v. RAFAEL SANTOS

    086 Phil 387

  • G.R. No. L-2188 May 19, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO GUILLERMO, ET AL.

    086 Phil 395

  • G.R. No. L-2231 May 19, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. INOCENCIO BERNARDO

    086 Phil 400

  • G.R. Nos. L-2731-32 May 19, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUBEN VICTORIANO, ET AL.

    086 Phil 405

  • G.R. No. L-2777 May 19, 1950 - FERNANDO HERNANDEZ, ET v. EMILIO PEÑA, ET AL

    086 Phil 411

  • G.R. No. L-2798 May 19, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GABRIEL GASPAR

    086 Phil 413

  • G.R. No. L-2823 May 19, 1950 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. CLEMENTE MACUL Y OTROS

    086 Phil 423

  • G.R. No. L-2835 May 19, 1950 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. GRACIANO TENORIO Y BRUNO TENORIO

    086 Phil 427

  • G.R. No. L-3066 May 22, 1950 - RADIOWEALTH, INC. v. MANUEL AGREGADO, ET AL

    086 Phil 429

  • G.R. No. L-3103 May 22, 1950 - YU PHI KHIM, ET AL v. RAFAEL AMPARO, ET AL

    086 Phil 441

  • G.R. No. L-3595 May 22, 1950 - ANG LAM v. POTENCIANO ROSILLOSA, ET AL

    086 Phil 447

  • G.R. No. L-2792 May 23, 1950 - ROMEO JACA v. MANUEL BLANCO

    086 Phil 452

  • G.R. No. L-3049 May 24, 1950 - JULIANA VIVO v. JOSE S. BAUTISTA

    086 Phil 456

  • G.R. No. L-2181 May 25, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONRADO SANTIAGO, ET AL.

    086 Phil 459

  • G.R. No. L-3443 May 26, 1950 - FELIPE LUNA v. GAVINO S. ABAYA, ET AL

    086 Phil 472

  • G.R. No. L-1601 May 29, 1950 - CENON ALBEA v. CARLOS INQUIMBOY, ET AL

    086 Phil 477

  • G.R. No. L-2365 May 29, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO SAN LUIS, ET AL

    086 Phil 485

  • G.R. No. L-3071 May 29, 1950 - SALVACION LOPEZ v. JOSE TEODORO, ET AL

    086 Phil 499

  • G.R. No. L-3271 May 29, 1950 - QUIRINO RICAFRENTE, ET AL v. GUILLERMO CABRERA, ET AL

    086 Phil 502

  • G.R. No. L-3451 May 29, 1950 - RODOLFO GERARDO v. JUDGE OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ILOCOS NORTE

    086 Phil 504

  • G.R. No. L-2660 May 30, 1950 - LUZON MARINE DEPARTMENT UNION v. ARSENIO C. ROLDAN, ET AL

    086 Phil 507

  • G.R. No. L-2744 May 30, 1950 - GAUDENCIO D. DEMAISIP, ET AL v. QUERUBE C. MAKALINTAL, ET AL

    086 Phil 515

  • G.R. No. L-2800 May 30, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEOPISTA CANJA

    086 Phil 518

  • G.R. No. L-3211 May 30, 1950 - A. SORIANO Y CIA. v. GONZALO M. JOSE, ET AL

    086 Phil 523

  • G.R. No. L-2408 May 31, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO RIPARIP ET AL.

    086 Phil 526

  • G.R. No. L-2816 May 31, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE YTURRIAGA

    086 Phil 534

  • G.R. No. L-3343 May 31, 1950 - REGINO EUSTAQUIO v. JUAN R. LIWAG, ET AL

    086 Phil 540

  • G.R. No. L-3541 May 31, 1950 - TOMAS T. FABELLA v. TIBURCIO TANCINCO ETC.

    086 Phil 543

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-3271   May 29, 1950 - QUIRINO RICAFRENTE, ET AL v. GUILLERMO CABRERA, ET AL<br /><br />086 Phil 502

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. L-3271. May 29, 1950.]

    QUIRINO RICAFRENTE and FORTUNATO TIANGCO, Petitioners, v. GUILLERMO CABRERA, Municipal Judge of the City of Manila, and MIGUEL TOLENTINO, Respondents.

    Gregorio N. De Guia, for Petitioners.

    Miguel Tolentino in his own behalf.

    SYLLABUS


    1. VENUE; INFERIOR COURTS; ACTION UPON ORAL CONTRACT OR TORT. — In an action for recovery of personal property, or collection of debt, or claim upon a tort, the venue depends upon whether or not a written agreement is sued upon. Where there is such agreement, the venue is the municipality agreed upon by the parties in such writing; otherwise, the venue is the municipality where the written agreement was executed if such place of execution appears on the face of the writing. Where the place of execution is not shown by writing, or the action is not upon a written agreement, but upon an oral one or upon a tort, the venue is the municipality where the defendant resides.


    D E C I S I O N


    TUASON, J.:


    This is a petition to prohibit Judge Guillermo Cabrera of the Municipal Court of Manila from compelling the petitioner to go to trial in civil case No. 6883.

    Petitioner Quirino Ricafrente was the owner of a jeep station wagon driven by petitioner Fortunato Tiangco, and respondent Miguel Tolentino was the owner of a sedan. On November 6, 1948, the two vehicles collided between Tagaytay City and Batangas resulting in the alleged damage to Tolentino’s car in the amount of P962.63. Action by Tolentino to recover this amount was instituted in the Municipal Court of Manila, and the petitioners, defendants in the civil case, filed a motion to dismiss, alleging lack of jurisdiction of the respondent Judge to try the suit for the reason that the plaintiff was a resident of Manila and the defendants of Cavite City. The motion was denied, hence this petition.

    Tolentino, answering the present petition alleges that there was a verbal agreement, which he sets out in his complaint, entered into in the City of Manila, whereby the petitioners, defendants in the civil case, bound themselves to pay the damage suffered by him (Tolentino), and he maintains from this that the suit was properly brought in that city, citing section 2, Rule 4, of the Rules of Court.

    The rule relied upon reads:red:chanrobles.com.ph

    "SEC. 2. Venue in inferior courts.

    *******.

    "All other civil actions in inferior courts shall be brought:red:chanrobles.com.ph

    "(a) In the place specified by the parties by means of a written agreement, whenever the court shall have jurisdiction to try the action by reason of its nature or the amount involved;.

    "(b) If there is no such agreement, in the place of the execution of the contract sued upon as appears therefrom;" (c) When the place of execution of the written contract sued upon does not appear therein, or the action is not upon a written contract, then in the municipality where the defendant or any of the defendants resides or may be served with summons.."

    A close reading of the foregoing Rule will show that verbal agreements do not come within the exceptions to the requirements that actions shall be brought in the municipality where the defendant or any of the defendants resides.

    In an action for recovery of personal property, or collection of debt, or claim upon a tort, the venue depends upon whether or not a written agreement is sued upon. Where there is such agreement, the venue is the municipality agreed upon by the parties in such writing; otherwise, the venue is the municipality where the written agreement was executed if such place of execution appears on the face of the writing. Where the place of execution is not shown by writing, or the action is not upon a written agreement, but upon an oral one or upon a tort, the venue is the municipality where the defendant resides. (I Comments on the Rules of Court, Moran, 15.) .

    The motion to dismiss therefore is well taken and the petition will be granted with costs against respondent Miguel Tolentino. So ordered.

    Ozaeta, Pablo, Bengzon, Montemayor, and Reyes, JJ., concur.

    Petition granted.

    G.R. No. L-3271   May 29, 1950 - QUIRINO RICAFRENTE, ET AL v. GUILLERMO CABRERA, ET AL<br /><br />086 Phil 502


    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