Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1954 > May 1954 Decisions > G.R. No. L-6792 May 14, 1954 - FAUSTO D. LAQUIAN v. FILOMENA SOCCO, ET AL.

094 Phil 1010:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-6792. May 14, 1954.]

FAUSTO D. LAQUIAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FILOMENA SOCCO, ET AL., Appellees.

Fausto D. Laquian in his own behalf.

Rivas, Socco & Songalia for appellee F. Socco.

Vicente S. Ocol for appellee Director of Lands.


SYLLABUS


1. PLEADING AND PRACTICE; ACTIONS; IMPROPER VENUE. — Where the purpose of the suit is to have a judicial declaration of a state of co-ownership, the action can not be considered as one of the partition which can be brought in any province where some of the properties to be partitioned are located. Obviously, the Court to First Instance of Bataan acquired no jurisdiction over the action where the real property therein involved is situated in the City of Manila.

2. ID.; ID.; DISMISSAL OF ACTIONS. — If the court admits plaintiff’s allegation that the disputed lots were held in tenancy by the deceased spouses, so that the preferential right to purchase the same from the Government passed to the heirs of both of them, the court should not have dismissed the complaint but instead rendered judgment granting plaintiff’s prayer.


D E C I S I O N


REYES, J.:


The spouses Marcelo Laquian and Constancia Socco died without issued and their respective estates are now under judicial administration in Special Proceedings Nos. 1941 and 2110 of the Court of First Instance of Bataan.

On October 16, 1951 Fausto D. Laquian, in his capacity as administrator of the estate of Marcelo Laquian, filed a complaint in that court against Filomena Socco, in her capacity as administratrix of the estate of Constancia Socco, and the Director of Land as successor to the defunct Rural Progress Administration, setting up two causes of action. The first cause of action referred to a house and lot in the City of Manila, registered in the name of the deceased Constancia Socco alone but alleged to belong in reality to herself and her deceased husband Marcelo Laquian, for which reason it was prayed that the property be declared conjugal and one-half thereof adjudged to the heirs of Marcelo Laquian and the other half to those of Constancia Socco. For a second cause of action, the complaint alleged that the aforementioned deceased spouses were in their lifetime the bona fide occupants and tenants of various lots of the Dinalupihan Estate, among them the six lots specifically described in the complaint and as such bona fide occupants and tenants had the preferential right to purchase the said six lots from the Rural Progress Administration or its successor the Director of Lands, but that the defendant Filomena Socco, as administratrix of the deceased Constancia Socco, claims that the six lots were exclusively occupied and possessed as bona fide lessee by the said deceased and the preferential right to purchase the said six lots from the Rural Progress Administration or its successor the Director of Lands, but that the defendant Filomena Socco, as administratrix of the deceased Constancia Socco, as administratrix of the deceased Constancia Socco, claims that the said six lots were exclusively occupied and possessed as bona fide lessee by the said deceased and the preferential right to purchase them from the Government passed, upon her death, to her own heirs so that her husband’s heirs could claim no participation therein. Plaintiff, therefore, prayed that the deceased spouses Marcelo Laquian and Constancia Socco be declared to have been the bona fide occupants and tenants of the lots in question and their preferential right to purchase the same to have been inherited by their respective heirs.

The Director of Lands answered the complaint, setting up a counterclaim against the estate of Marcelo Laquian for a sum of money representing unpaid rents for certain lots of the Dinalupihan Estate leased to the said deceased; but plaintiff having replied alleging that the said claim had already been settled, the court rendered an order providing for the deposit of the disputed portion of the said claim with the clerk of court.

Defendant, on her part, filed a motion for dismissal on the grounds that venue was improperly laid as to the first cause of action, and that as to the second cause of action, the complaint stated no cause. The lower court upheld both grounds and rendered an order dismissing the complaint. And reconsideration of this order having been denied, plaintiff has appealed to this Court, raising purely questions of law. The defendant Director of Lands does not appear to have taken any interest in the appeal one way or the other.

The appeal involves two legal question. One is whether venue was properly laid as to the first cause of action and the other is whether the lower court was justified in dismissing the second cause of action in view of the allegation in defendant’s motion to dismiss that there was no issue between her and plaintiff because she had never claimed that the deceased Constancia Socco "was the exclusive bona fide tenant of the six lots mentioned in the complaint."cralaw virtua1aw library

With reference to the first question, it is obvious that the Court of First Instance of Bataan had no jurisdiction over the same, because the real property therein involved is situated in the City of Manila, and section 3 of Rule 5 provides that "actions affecting title to, or for recovery of possession, or for partition or condemnation of, or foreclosure of mortgage on, real property, shall be commenced and tried in the province where the property or any part thereof lies." The contention that the present action is one for partition and may therefore be brought in any province where some of the properties to be partitioned are located, is untenable because there is as yet nothing to be partitioned and there will be none until a state of co- ownership has been judicially declared, which appears to be the purpose of the suit. This is specially true with respect to the second cause of action which seeks recognition of a joint participation in a mere option to purchase real estate.

The lower court dismissed the second cause of action on the theory that as the deceased spouses had a common interest in the lots in Bataan the administratrix of the spouse Filomena Socco should have been made co-plaintiff instead of defendant. If the statement to this effect in said defendant’s motion to dismiss was taken by the court as an admission of plaintiff’s allegation that those lots were held in tenancy not by Constancia Socco alone but by both herself and her husband so that the preferential right to purchase the same from the Government passed to the heirs of both of them, then what the lower court should have done was to render judgment granting the prayer in the second cause of action and not to dismiss the complaint.

In view of the foregoing, the order of dismissal is affirmed as to the first cause of action but revoked with respect to the second cause of action, as to which the case is ordered remanded to the lower court for further proceedings. With costs against the appellee.

Pablo, Bengzon, Montemayor, Jugo, Bautista Angelo, Labrador and Concepcion, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com





May-1954 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-6669 May 3, 1954 - PEDRO DAQUIS v. MAXIMO BUSTOS

    094 Phil 913

  • G.R. No. L-6736 May 4, 1954 - ISABEL GABRIEL, ET AL. v. DEMETRIO B. ENCARNACION, ET AL.

    094 Phil 917

  • G.R. No. L-6220 May 7, 1954 - MARTINA QUIZANA v. GAUDENCIO REDUGERIO, ET AL.

    094 Phil 922

  • G.R. No. L-5773 May 10, 1954 - CASIMIRO, ET AL. v. FABIAN SOBERANO

    094 Phil 927

  • G.R. No. L-6538 May 10, 1954 - PABLO BURGUETE v. JOVENCIO Q. MAYOR, ET AL.

    094 Phil 930

  • G.R. No. L-5694 May 12, 1954 - PAMBUJAN SUR UNITED MINE WORKERS v. SAMAR MINING CO., INC.

    094 Phil 932

  • G.R. No. L-6666 May 12, 1954 - GORGONIO PANDES v. JOSE TEODORO SR., ET AL.

    094 Phil 942

  • G.R. No. L-6765 May 12, 1954 - FULGENCIO VEGA, ET AL. v. MUN. BOARD OF THE CITY OF ILOILO, ET AL.

    094 Phil 949

  • G.R. No. L-4918 May 14, 1954 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE LEON GONZALEZ, ET AL.

    094 Phil 956

  • G.R. No. L-5689 May 14, 1954 - JUAN DE G. RODRIGUEZ, ET AL. v. AURELIO MONTINOLA, ET AL.

    094 Phil 964

  • G.R. No. L-5900 May 14, 1954 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PAULINO FRANCISCO

    094 Phil 975

  • G.R. No. L-5942 May 14, 1954 - R.F.C. v. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    094 Phil 984

  • G.R. No. L-6313 May 14, 1954 - ROYAL SHIRT FACTORY, INC. v. CO

    094 Phil 994

  • G.R. No. L-6444 May 14, 1954 - MUN. OF CALOOCAN v. MANOTOK REALTY, INC. ET AL.

    094 Phil 1003

  • G.R. No. L-6572 May 14, 1954 - MAX CHAMORRO & CO. v. PHIL. READY-MIX CONCRETE CO., INC., ET AL.

    094 Phil 1005

  • G.R. No. L-6792 May 14, 1954 - FAUSTO D. LAQUIAN v. FILOMENA SOCCO, ET AL.

    094 Phil 1010

  • G.R. No. L-6921 May 14, 1954 - EUGENIO CATILO v. GAVINO S. ABAYA

    094 Phil 1014

  • G.R. No. L-6481 May 17, 1954 - JESUS GUIAO v. ALBINO L. FIGUEROA

    094 Phil 1018

  • G.R. No. L-7045 May 18, 1954 - BENIGNO C. GUTIERREZ v. LAUREANO JOSE RUIZ, ET AL.

    094 Phil 1024

  • G.R. No. L-5378 May 24, 1954 - CO TIONG SA v. DIRECTOR OF PATENTS

    095 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. L-6408 May 24, 1954 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EPIFANIO CARULASDULASAN, ET AL.

    095 Phil 8

  • G.R. No. L-6522 May 24, 1954 - LUIS B. UVERO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    095 Phil 11

  • G.R. No. L-6807 May 24, 1954 - JESUS SACRED HEART COLLEGE v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    095 Phil 16

  • G.R. No. L-6870 May 24, 1954 - ELENA AMEDO v. RIO Y OLABARRIETA, INC.

    095 Phil 33

  • G.R. No. L-6988 May 24, 1954 - U.S.T. HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION v. STO. TOMAS UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL

    095 Phil 40

  • G.R. No. L-4817 May 26, 1954 - SILVESTRE M. PUNSALAN v. MUNICIPAL BOARD OF THE CITY OF MANILA, ET AL.

    095 Phil 46

  • G.R. No. L-5682 May 26, 1954 - ANASTACIO N. ABAD v. CANDIDA CARGANILLO VDA. DE YANCE

    095 Phil 51

  • G.R. No. L-5807 May 26, 1954 - BASILIA CABRERA, ET AL. v. FLORENCIA BELEN, ET AL.

    095 Phil 54

  • G.R. No. L-5906 May 26, 1954 - ANGAT-MANILA TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. VICTORIA VDA. DE TENGCO

    095 Phil 58

  • G.R. No. L-5953 May 26, 1954 - EX-MERALCO EMPLOYEES TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    095 Phil 61

  • G.R. No. L-6246 May 26, 1954 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIX RIPAS

    095 Phil 63

  • G.R. No. L-6260 May 26, 1954 - HERMOGENES TARUC v. BACHRACH MOTOR CO.

    095 Phil 73

  • G.R. No. L-6306 May 26, 1954 - FORTUNATO HALILI v. MARIA LLORET, ET AL.

    095 Phil 78

  • G.R. No. L-6353 May 26, 1954 - DANIEL CABANGANGAN v. ROBERTO CONCEPCION, ET AL.

    095 Phil 87

  • G.R. No. L-6463 May 26, 1954 - RIZAL SURETY & INSURANCE CO. v. MARCIANO DE LA PAZ

    095 Phil 90

  • G.R. Nos. L-6675-81 May 26, 1954 - BIENVENIDO E. DOLLENTE v. EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS

    095 Phil 97

  • G.R. No. L-7024 May 26, 1954 - ROMAN TOLSA v. ALEJANDRO J. PANLILIO, ET AL.

    095 Phil 104

  • G.R. No. L-4935 May 28, 1954 - J.M. TUASON & CO., INC. v. QUIRINO BOLAÑOS

    095 Phil 106

  • G.R. No. L-6462 May 28, 1954 - BELEN JOVE LAGRIMAS v. TITO LAGRIMAS

    095 Phil 113

  • G.R. No. L-6967 May 28, 1954 - JOSE PONCE DE LEON v. FIDEL IBAÑEZ, ET AL.

    095 Phil 119

  • G.R. No. L-7042 May 28, 1954 - CLOTILDE MEJIA VDA. DE ALFAFARA v. PLACIDO MAPA, ET AL.

    095 Phil 125

  • G.R. No. L-3663 May 31, 1954 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. MARIA VELASCO RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

    095 Phil 135

  • G.R. No. L-4510 May 31, 1954 - MARC DONNELLY & ASSOCIATES, INC. v. MANUEL AGREGADO, ET AL.

    095 Phil 142

  • G.R. No. L-4633 May 31, 1954 - GREGORIO ARANETA, INC. v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

    095 Phil 160

  • G.R. No. L-5824 May 31, 1954 - PAZ PAREJA v. JULIO PAREJA

    095 Phil 167

  • G.R. No. L-5837 May 31, 1954 - CRISTOBAL BONNEVIE, ET AL. v. JAIME HERNANDEZ

    095 Phil 175

  • G.R. No. L-6018 May 31, 1954 - EMILIANO MORABE v. WILLIAM BROWN

    095 Phil 181

  • G.R. No. L-6122 May 31, 1954 - AURELIA DE LARA, ET AL. v. JACINTO AYROSO

    095 Phil 185

  • G.R. No. L-6461 May 31, 1954 - PILAR ARAULLO MACOY v. CARMEN VASQUEZ TRINIDAD, ET AL.

    095 Phil 192

  • G.R. Nos. L-7403 & L-7426 May 31, 1954 - COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS v. GAVINO S. ABAYA, ET AL.

    095 Phil 205