Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1963 > January 1963 Decisions > G.R. No. L-18692 January 31, 1963 - MANUEL B. RUIZ v. J. M. TUASON & CO., INC., ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-18692. January 31, 1963.]

MANUEL B. RUIZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. M. TUASON & CO., INC., ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

Manuel B. Ruiz for and in his own behalf as plaintiff-appellant.

Tuason & Sison for Defendants-Appellees.


SYLLABUS


1. VENUE; ACTION AFFECTING TITLE TO OR RECOVERY OF POSSESSION OF REAL PROPERTY; ACTION TO BE COMMENCED IN PROVINCE WHERE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. — Although a complaint is entitled to be one for specific performance, the fact that the complainant asked that a deed of sale of a parcel of land be issued in his favor and that a transfer certificate of title covering said land be issued to him, shows that the primary objective and nature of the action is to recover the parcel of land itself because to execute in favor of the complainant the reconveyance requested there is need to make a finding that he is the owner of land in the last analysis resolves itself into an issue of ownership. Hence, the action must be commenced in the province where the property is situated pursuant to Section 3, Rule 5, of the Rules of Court, which provides that actions affecting title to or recovery of possession of real property shall be commenced and tried in the province where the property or any part thereof lies.

2. ID.; ID.; ACTION NOT MADE TRANSITORY BY THE FACT THAT INJUNCTION IS SOUGHT AS ANCIILLARY TO PRINCIPAL ACTION. — If an action necessarily involves a determination of an interest in land, the suit must be brought in the place where the land is situated. The fact that an injunction is sought as an ancillary to the principal action does not make the case transitory of personal.


D E C I S I O N


BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:


Manuel B. Ruiz brought an action before the Court of First Instance of Manila praying (a) that J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc. and the sheriff of Quezon City be enjoined from executing the writ of execution issued in Civil Case No. Q-3492 against Sixto M. Cacho but which is being enforced against him by ejecting him from the property in question and demolishing the house erected thereon, and (b) that J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc. be ordered to execute a final deed of sale in his favor of a parcel of land with an area of 420 sq. m. upon payment by him of the purchase price at the rate of P7.00 per sq. m. and to consider the sum of P855.00 already paid by him to defendant Florencio Deudor as partial payment thereof.

Florencio Deudor, one of the defendants, filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that (1) the venue of action is improperly laid, (2) plaintiff has no cause of action against said defendant; and (3) plaintiff’s cause of action, if any, has prescribed. Defendant J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc., in turn filed a motion for bill of particulars.

Disregarding plaintiff’s opposition to the motion to dismiss and while the motion for bill of particulars was pending consideration, the court a quo, on March 11, 1961, issued an order dismissing the case on the ground that, the property in question being situated in Quezon City, and the action being one affecting real property or involving title thereto, the venue of action is improperly laid. His motion for reconsideration having been denied, plaintiff interposed the present appeal.

The case having been dismissed on the basis of a mere motion to dismiss, the only facts that may be considered for the purpose of this appeal are those alleged in the complaint. The pertinent facts may be stated as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That . . . defendant Florencio Deudor was . . . the absolute owner and possessor of a piece of land situated in Barrio Tatalon, Quezon City, Philippines, containing an area of . . . 210,000 square meters, covered by a possessory information title in the name of his deceased father, Telesforo Deudor, . . .

"That . . . said Florencio Deudor, in consideration of the sum of . . . P4,800.00, . . . by way of absolute sale, sold, transferred and conveyed unto Severino G. Navarro, Jose Dinglasan and Teofilo P. Bantug, . . . a portion of land referred to in the next preceding paragraph, which portion is more particularly described as follows, to wit:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘A parcel of land known as Lot No. 72 on subdivision Plan, Psu ______ situated in the Barrio of Tatalon, Quezon City; Bounded on the North by Lot No. 74; on the East by Lot No. 73; on the South by Quezon Blvd., and on the West by Road; — Hunters ROTC Ave., . . .

"That . . . after the sale aforestated . . . said vendee, Jose Dinglasan, took possession of his portion of the land sold containing an area of 420 square meters, and built two houses of strong materials thereon declared for purposes of taxation in his name, under Tax No. 11876 and Tax No. 11935, both of Quezon City, . . .

"That sometime in . . . 1950, Jose Dinglasan tried to make payments on the balance of the purchase price of the land aforestated, but . . . Florencio Deudor refused to accept said payment because there was then pending an action (Civil Case No. Q-135) before the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Quezon City Branch, involving the ownership of the parcel of land referred to above, and of which the lot bought by Jose Dinglasan is a part, . . .

"That in Civil Case No. Q-135 above referred to, together with Civil Case Nos. Q-139, 174, 177 and 186 of the same Court, . . . after a . . . joint trial the parties thereto, . . . on March 16, 1953, entered into a ‘Compromise Agreement’, . . . paragraph 7 of which provides:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘SEVENTH. That the sales of the property rights claimed by the DEUDORS, are described in the lists submitted by them to the OWNERS which are attached hereto marked Annexes "B" and "C" and made a part hereof. Whatever amounts may have been collected by the DEUDORS on account thereof, shall be deducted from the total sum of P1,201,063.00 to be paid to them. It shall be the joint and solidary obligation of the DEUDORS to make the buyers of the lots purportedly sold by them to recognize the title of the OWNERS over the property purportedly bought by them, and to make them sign, whenever possible, new contracts of purchase for said property at the current prices and terms specified by the OWNERS in their sales of lots to their subdivision known as "Sta. Mesa Heights Subdivision." The DEUDORS hereby advise the OWNERS that the buyers listed in Annex "B" herein with the annotation "continue" shall buy the lots respectively occupied by them and shall sign new contracts, but the sums already paid by to the DEUDORS amounting to P134,922.24 (subject to verification by the Court) shall be credited to the buyers and shall be deducted from the sums to be paid to the DEUDORS by the OWNERS. The DEUDORS also advise the OWNERS that the buyers listed in Annex "C" herein with the annotation "Refund" have decided not to continue with their former contracts of purchase with the DEUDORS and the sums already paid by them to the DEUDORS totalling P101,182.42 (subject to verification by the Court) shall be refunded to them by the OWNERS and deducted from the sums that may be the DEUDORS from the OWNERS.’

"That in the list of purchasers . . . the name of Jose Dinglasan appears in Number 13 thereof, who has paid the amount of P865.00 . . .

"That our Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Lucina Evangelista v. Deudor, Et Al., 106 Phil., 17, promulgated on September 10, 1959, ruled and held that, by the said Compromise Agreement, a sort of contractual relation has existed between . . . . J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc., and the purchasers of the land from the ‘Deudors’ as regards the sales of their respective lots, and that J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc. assumed certain obligations in favor of said purchasers, among whom is Jose Dinglasan, . . .

"That . . . Jose Dinglasan sold, transferred and conveyed unto the spouses Sixto M. Cacho and Julita de Jesus, all his rights and interests over the portion of land of 420 square meters referred to above, including all the improvements thereon, . . . who in turn sold, transferred and conveyed unto appellant all their rights and interest in the portion of land of 420 square meters . . .

"That immediately after said transfer, . . . herein plaintiff took possession of said portion of land and the improvements thereon, in the concept of an owner thereof, . . .

"That the subject property corresponds to a portion of Lot No. 10, Block No. 504 of the Subdivision plan of J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc., . . . located in Barrio Matalahib, Tatalon, Quezon City and covered by TCT No. 1267 of the Register of Deeds of Quezon City.

"That . . . plaintiff made a demand upon J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc., through its agent and administrator Gregorio Araneta, Inc., to execute a new contract in his favor of the subject property . . . at P7.00 per square meter pursuant to paragraph 7 of the Compromise Agreement but . . . Tuason & Co., through its agent Gregorio Araneta, Inc., refused to do so; . . . that plaintiff was and is always ready and willing to pay . . . the price of the lot in question . . . at the rate of P7.00 per square meter.

"That . . . Tuason & Co., on November 20, 1958, filed an action . . . against Sixto M. Cacho in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Quezon City Branch IV, docketed as Civil Case No. Q-3492, wherein a judgment by default was rendered against Sixto Cacho . . .

"That . . . J. M. Tuason & Co. secured a writ of execution of the aforementioned judgment by default against said Sixto M. Cacho in said Civil Case No. Q-3492, dated May 20, 1959, and armed with said writ, and with the aid of the defendant Sheriff of Quezon City, now threatens, and is about, to eject herein plaintiff from the property in question and demolish his houses therein, including the house where he is now living . . .

"That the execution of the judgment against Sixto M. Cacho in Civil Case No. Q3492 will . . . cause irreparable injury . . . and injustice to the plaintiff . . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

Appellant contends that the present action is transitory because it is one for specific performance and its object is to compel J. T. Tuason & Co., Inc. to execute a final deed of sale of the property in question in favor of appellant founded upon compliance with the compromise agreement wherein said company recognized the sale made by Florencio Deudor of said property in favor of one Jose Dinglasan who, in the same agreement, was recognized by the company as a purchaser who had already made partial payment of the purchase price of the land.

This contention has no merit. Although appellant’s complaint is entitled to be one for specific performance, yet the fact that he asked that a deed of sale of a parcel of land situated in Quezon City be issued in his favor and that a transfer certificate of title covering said land be issued to him shows that the primary objective and nature of the action is to recover the parcel of land itself because to execute in favor of appellant the conveyance requested there is need to make a finding that he is the owner of the land which in the last analysis resolves itself into an issue of ownership. Hence, the action must be commenced in the province where the property is situated pursuant to Section 3, Rule 5, of the Rules of Court, which provides that actions affecting title to or recovery of possession of real property shall be commenced and tried in the province where the property or any part thereof lies. This contention finds support in the following authorities:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"An action by which plaintiff seeks to have it adjudged that he is the owner of an undivided third of mining property, and to have defendants directed to execute to him a conveyance thereof, is within Code Civ. Proc. Section 392, providing that actions for recovery of real property or of an interest therein, or for the determination of such interest, must be tried in the country in which the subject of the action is situated." (McFarland v. Martin, Et Al., 78 P. 239).

"Suit by purchaser for ascertainment of amount due on contract and for vendors’ execution of deed on payment thereof held suit for specific performance, triable where land was situated." (Kopke v. Carlson, Et Al., 276 P. 606).

It should further be noted that among the reliefs prayed for in the complaint is the prayer that defendants J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc. and the sheriff of Quezon City be enjoined from executing the writ of execution issued by the court of first instance of said city in Civil Case No. Q-3492 wherein said sheriff is allegedly trying to enforce against appellant by ejecting him and demolishing the house he has on the land located in Quezon City, which claim necessarily involves a determination of ownership and possession of said property as a preliminary step to determining the validity of the writ of execution. The complaint having been filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila it is apparent that venue is improperly laid. This is in accordance with the rule that if an action necessarily involves a determination of an interest in land, the suit must be brought in the place where the land is situated. The fact that an injunction is sought as an ancillary to the principal action does not make the case transitory or personal.

"The primary object of a suit for injunction is determinative on the question of venue. If the suit necessarily involves a determination of an interest in land, the suit must be brought in the country where the land lies. . . . The fact that an injunction is sought as relief ancillary to the main suit does not make it transitory." (92 C.J.S., pp. 748-749).

WHEREFORE, the order appealed from is affirmed. No costs.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






January-1963 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-19823 January 12, 1963 - RUPERTO ADVINCULA, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13873 January 31, 1963 - GENERAL INSURANCE and SURETY CORPORATION v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14311 January 31, 1963 - MANILA SANITARIUM & HOSPITAL v. FAUSTO GABUCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14653 January 31, 1963 - IN RE: RICARDO SANTIAGO v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION

  • G.R. No. L-14676 January 31, 1963 - CANDIDA VILLALUZ, ET AL. v. JUAN NEME, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14801 January 31, 1963 - FILOMENA SILVA v. DOMINGO M. CABAÑGON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15151 January 31, 1963 - EDMUNDO GRACELLA v. EL COLEGIO DEL HOSPICIO DE SAN JOSE, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-15467 January 31, 1963 - JESUS LANCITA, ET AL. v. GONZALO MAGBANUA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15484 January 31, 1963 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO RAMOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15656 January 31, 1963 - ASSOCIATED INSURANCE & SURETY COMPANY, INC. v. WELLINGTON CHUA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15754 January 31, 1963 - NORTH CAMARINES LUMBER COMPANY, INC. v. METROPOLITAN INSURANCE COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-15948 January 31, 1963 - PEDRO P. RIVERA v. CARLOS P. MACLANG

  • G.R. No. L-16257 January 31, 1963 - CAPITOL SUBDIVISION, INC. v. PROVINCE OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL

  • G.R. No. L-16396 January 31, 1963 - BASILISA JUSTIVA v. JESUS GUSTILO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16417 January 31, 1963 - P. J. KIENER CO., LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-16435 January 31, 1963 - DIOSDADO ESPINOSA v. NICASIO A. YATCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16489 January 31, 1963 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAUL BASBANIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16525 January 31, 1963 - JOSEPH REICH v. EDMUND SCHWESINGER, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16749 January 31, 1963 - IN RE: EDWARD E. CHRISTENSEN v. HELEN CHRISTENSEN GARCIA

  • G.R. No. L-16827 January 31, 1963 - J. M. TUASON & CO., INC. v. JOSE AGUIRRE

  • G.R. No. L-16884 January 31, 1963 - NATIONAL MINES AND ALLIED WORKERS’ UNION v. MELQUIADES G. ILAO

  • G.R. No. L-17085 January 31, 1963 - LUZON BROKERAGE COMPANY v. LUZON LABOR UNION

  • G.R. No. L-17625 January 31, 1963 - INSULAR LUMBER COMPANY v. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM

  • G.R. No. L-17804 January 31, 1963 - NATIONAL MARKETING CORPORATION, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17837 January 31, 1963 - ORIENTAL KAPOK INDUSTRIES v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-17878 January 31, 1963 - AMERICAN STEAMSHIP AGENCIES, INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18096 January 31, 1963 - MARIA ABON, ET AL. v. AMPARO E. PABLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18129 January 31, 1963 - C. N. HODGES v. MUNICIPAL BOARD OF THE CITY OF ILOILO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18178 January 31, 1963 - REGISTER OF DEEDS OF ILOILO v. C. N. HODGES

  • G.R. No. L-18184 January 31, 1963 - GAUDENCIO VERA, ET AL. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18240 January 31, 1963 - SOFRONIO C. QUIMSON, ET AL. v. PASTOR L. DE GUZMAN

  • G.R. No. L-18290 January 31, 1963 - CITY OF BACOLOD v. LEANDRO GRUET

  • G.R. No. L-18360 January 31, 1963 - TATALON BARRIO COUNCIL, ET AL. v. CHIEF ACCOUNTANT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18389 January 31, 1963 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18480 January 31, 1963 - LEOPOLDO SALCEDO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18515 January 31, 1963 - GERONIMO E. CAPARAS v. DOMINGO C. GONZALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18518 January 31, 1963 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FEDERICO TAGARO

  • G.R. No. L-18601-2 January 31, 1963 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUALHATI S. MACANDOG

  • G.R. No. L-18639 January 31, 1963 - JAVIER SECURITY SPECIAL WATCHMAN AGENCY, ET AL. v. SHELL CRAFT & BUTTON CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. L-18692 January 31, 1963 - MANUEL B. RUIZ v. J. M. TUASON & CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18704 January 31, 1963 - OCEANIC AIR PRODUCTS, INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18742 January 31, 1963 - OFELIA DE GREARTE, ET AL. v. LONDON ASSURANCE

  • G.R. No. L-18746 January 31, 1963 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FREDERICK G. WEBER, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18879 January 31, 1963 - LOPE DAMASCO v. ABUNDIO Z. ARRIETA

  • G.R. No. L-18941 January 31, 1963 - GERTRUDES MATA, ET AL. v. RITA LEGARDA, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-18982 January 31, 1963 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUPERTO SORIA

  • G.R. No. L-19423 January 31, 1963 - PEOPLE’S SURETY AND INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. v. CRISANTO ARAGON