KINDS OF ACTIONS.docx

7/25/2019 KINDS OF ACTIONS.docx

1/182

KINDS OF ACTIONS (ACTION IN REM)

G.R. Nos. 88075-77 December 20 !"8"MA#IMO TACA$ %ONCIANO %ANES &' ANTONIA NOE *e+,+,o'erss.REGIONA TRIA CORT OF TAGM D&&o e/ Nor+e

In the Regional Trial Court at Tagum, Davao del Norte, 1 three

(3) actions for recovery of possession (acciones pulicianas ! ) "ere separatelyinstituted y #odofredo $ineda against three (3) defendants, doc%eted as follo"s&

1) vs' ntonia Noel Civil Case No' !!*!) vs' $onciano $anes Civil Case No' !!13) vs' +aimo Tacay Civil Case No' !!11'

Civil Cases Numered !!* and !!11 "ere ra-ed to .ranch I of the Trial Court,presided over y /udge +arcial 0ernande' Civil No' !!1 "as assigned to .ranch !,presided over y /udge /esus +atas'

The complaints 3 all alleged the same essential facts (1) $ineda "as the o"ner of aparcel of land measuring 2* suare meters, his o"nership eing evidenced y TCTNo' T456768 (!) the previous o"ner had allo"ed the defendants to occupy portionsof the land y mere tolerance8 (3) having himself need to use the property, $inedahad made demands on the defendants to vacate the property and pay reasonalerentals therefor, ut these demands had een refused8 and (5) the last demand hadeen made more than a year prior to the commencement of suit' The complaintsprayed for the same reliefs, to "it&

1) that plainti9 e declared o"ner of the areas occupied y the defendants8!) that defendants and their :privies and allies: e ordered to vacate and deliverthe portions of the land usurped y them83) that each defendant e ordered to pay&

1 ) $ !, as monthly rents from ;eruary, 1*


2/182

' ' ' for the reason that the ''' complaint violates the mandatory and clear provisionof Circular No' 2 of the ''' Bupreme Court dated +arch !5,1*


3/182

It is true that the complaints do not state the amounts eing claimed as actual,moral and nominal damages' It is also true, ho"ever, that the actions are notasically for the recovery of sums of money' They are principally for recovery ofpossession of real property, in the nature of an accion puliciana' Determinative ofthe court>s ?urisdiction in this type of actions is the nature thereof, not the amount

of the damages allegedly arising from or connected "ith the issue of title orpossession, and regardless of the value of the property' Euite oviously, an actionfor recovery of possession of real property (such as an accion plenaria de possesion)or the title thereof, 1! or for partition or condemnation of, or the foreclosure of amortgage on, said real property 13 4 in other "ords, a real action4may ecommenced and prosecuted "ithout an accompanying claim for actual, moral,nominal or eemplary damages8 and such an action "ould fall "ithin the eclusive,original ?urisdiction of the Regional Trial Court'

.atas $amansa .ilang 1!* provides that Regional Trial Courts shall eerciseeclusive original ?urisdiction inter alia over :all civil actions "hich involve the titleto, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein, ecept actions for forcile

entry into and unla"ful detainer of lands or uildings, original ?urisdiction over"hich is conferred upon +etropolitan Trial Courts, +unicipal Trial Courts, and+unicipal Circuit Trial Courts': 15 The rule applies regardless of the value of the realproperty involved, "hether it e "orth more than $!,' or not, infra' The rulealso applies even "here the complaint involving realty also prays for an a"ard ofdamages8 the amount of those damages "ould e immaterial to the uestion of theCourt>s ?urisdiction' The rule is unli%e that in other cases e'g', actions simply forrecovery of money or of personal property, 17 or actions in admiralty and maritime

?urisdiction 16 in "hich the amount claimed, 12 or the value of the personalproperty, is determinative of ?urisdiction8 i'e', the value of the personal property orthe amount claimed should eceed t"enty thousand pesos ($!,') in order toe cogniale y the Regional Trial Court'

Circular No' 2 of this Court, dated +arch !5, 1*


4/182

!' ny pleading that fails to comply "ith this reuirement shall not e accepted noradmitted, or shall other"ise e epunged from the record'

3' The Court acuires ?urisdiction over any case only upon the payment of theprescried doc%et fee' n amendment of the complaint or similar pleading "ill not

therey vest ?urisdiction in the Court, much less the payment of the doc%et feeased on the amount sought in the amended pleading'

The clari=catory and additional rules laid do"n in Bun Insurance Fce, Gtd' v'suncion, supra, read as follo"s&

1' It is not simply the =ling of the complaint or appropriate initiatory pleading, ut(also) the payment of the prescried doc%et fee that vests a trial court "ith

?urisdiction over the su?ect4matter or nature of the action' Hhere the =ling of theinitiatory pleading is not accompanied y payment of the doc%et fee, the court mayallo" payment of the fee "ithin a reasonale time ut in no case eyond theapplicale prescriptive or reglementary period'

!' The same rule applies to permissive counterclaims, third4party claims and similarpleadings, "hich shall not e considered =led until and unless the =ling feeprescried therefor is paid' The court may also allo" payment of said fee "ithin areasonale time ut also in no case eyond its applicale prescriptive orreglementary period'

3' Hhere the trial court acuires ?urisdiction over a claim y the =ling of theappropriate pleading and payment of the prescried =ling fee ut, suseuently,the ?udgment a"ards a claim not speci=ed in the pleading, or if speci=ed, the samehas een left for determination y the court, the additional =ling fee therefor shallconstitute a lien on the ?udgment' It shall e the responsiility of the Cler% of Courtor his duly authoried deputy to enforce said lien and assess and collect theadditional fee'

s "ill e noted, the reuirement in Circular No' 2 that complaints, petitions,ans"ers, and similar pleadings should specify the amount of damages eing prayedfor not only in the ody of the pleading ut also in the prayer, has not een altered'Hhat has een revised is the rule that suseuent :amendment of the complaint orsimilar pleading "ill not therey vest ?urisdiction in the Court, much less thepayment of the doc%et fee ased on the amount sought in the amended pleading,:the trial court no" eing authoried to allo" payment of the fee "ithin a reasonaletime ut in no case eyond the applicale prescriptive or reglementary period'+oreover, a ne" rule has een added, governing a"ards of claims not speci=ed inthe pleading 4 i'e', damages arising after the =ling of the complaint or similarpleading4as to "hich the additional =ling fee therefor shall constitute a lien on the

?udgment'

No", under the Rules of Court, doc%et or =ling fees are assessed on the asis of the:sum claimed,: on the one hand, or the :value of the property in litigation or thevalue of the estate,: on the other' 1< There are, in other "ords, as already aoveintimated, actions or proceedings involving real property, in "hich the value of the


5/182

property is immaterial to the court>s ?urisdiction, account thereof eing ta%en merelyfor assessment of the legal fees8 and there are actions or proceedings, involvingpersonal property or the recovery of money andor damages, in "hich the value ofthe property or the amount of the demand is decisive of the trial court>scompetence (aside from eing the asis for =ing the corresponding doc%et fees)'1*

Hhere the action is purely for the recovery of money or damages, the doc%et feesare assessed on the asis of the aggregate amount claimed, eclusive only ofinterests and costs' In this case, the complaint or similar pleading should, accordingto Circular No' 2 of this Court, :specify the amount of damages eing prayed for notonly in the ody of the pleading ut also in the prayer, and said damages shall econsidered in the assessment of the =ling fees in any case':

T"o situations may arise' ne is "here the complaint or similar pleading sets out aclaim purely for money or damages and there is no precise statement of theamounts eing claimed' In this event the rule is that the pleading "ill :not eaccepted nor admitted, or shall other"ise e epunged from the record': In other

"ords, the complaint or pleading may e dismissed, or the claims as to "hich theamounts are unspeci=ed may e epunged, although as aforestated the Court may,on motion, permit amendment of the complaint and payment of the fees providedthe claim has not in the meantime ecome time4arred' The other is "here thepleading does specify the amount of every claim, ut the fees paid are insuFcient8and here again, the rule no" is that the court may allo" a reasonale time for thepayment of the prescried fees, or the alance thereof, and upon such payment,the defect is cured and the court may properly ta%e cogniance of the action, unlessin the meantime prescription has set in and conseuently arred the right of action'

Hhere the action involves real property and a related claim for damages as "ell, thelegal fees shall e assessed on the asis of oth (a) the value of the property and() the total amount of related damages sought' The Court acuires ?urisdiction overthe action if the =ling of the initiatory pleading is accompanied y the payment ofthe reuisite fees, or, if the fees are not paid at the time of the =ling of the pleading,as of the time of full payment of the fees "ithin such reasonale time as the courtmay grant, unless, of course, prescription has set in the meantime' .ut "here4as inthe case at ar4the fees prescried for an action involving real property have eenpaid, ut the amounts of certain of the related damages (actual, moral and nominal)eing demanded are unspeci=ed, the action may not e dismissed' The Courtundenialy has ?urisdiction over the action involving the real property, acuiring itupon the =ling of the complaint or similar pleading and payment of the prescriedfee' nd it is not divested of that authority y the circumstance that it may not haveacuired ?urisdiction over the accompanying claims for damages ecause of lac% ofspeci=cation thereof' Hhat should e done is simply to epunge those claims fordamages as to "hich no amounts are stated, "hich is "hat the respondent Courtsdid, or allo", on motion, a reasonale time for the amendment of the complaints soas to allege the precise amount of each item of damages and accept payment ofthe reuisite fees therefor "ithin the relevant prescriptive period'

H0@R@;R@, the petition is DIB+IBB@D, "ithout pronouncement as to costs'


6/182

S%ITTING OF CASE OF ACTION

GEORGE EONARD S. MAE %e+,+,o'er - erss - CANOGA %ARKDE1EO%MENT COR%ORATION Res*o'e'+. /3 20 20!!

n /anuary 5, !, the parties entered into a Contract of Gease7J "herey the

petitioner agreed to lease, for a period of t"o (!) years starting from /anuary 16,!, an eight hundred sity (


7/182

n appeal, the RTC4.ranch 6< reversed and set aside the decision of the +TC4.ranch 21, and dismissed Civil Case No' *!1 on the ground of litis pendentia'16J

The petitioner, ho"ever, "as still ordered to pay rent in the amount of seventy4onethousand =ve hundred pesos ($21,7') per month eginning /anuary 16, !!,"hich amount is the monthly rent stipulated in the lease contract'

ggrieved y the reversal, the respondent =led a $etition for Revie" under Rule 5!of the Rules of Court "ith the C' The respondent argued that there eists no litispendentia et"een Civil Case Nos'


8/182

sustantial identity, of the causes of action in oth cases eist, then the secondcomplaint for unla"ful detainer may e dismissed on the ground of litis pendentia'

He rule that Civil Case Nos'


9/182

Case No' *!1 "ere for those incurred after the epiration of the lease contract,!


10/182


11/182

such termination, in "riting, in respect of monthly paid "or%ers and =fteen daysSnotice in respect of other "or%ers' The party terminating a contract "ithout thereuired notice shall pay to the other party compensation euivalent to the amountof "ages payale to the "or%er for the period of such notice or the unepiredportion thereof'P

rt' Ill& the employer concerned shall pay to such "or%er, upon termination ofemployment, a leaving indemnity for the period of his employment calculated onthe asis of =fteen daysS "ages for each year of the =rst three years of service andof one monthSs "ages for each year of service thereafter' Buch "or%er shall eentitled to payment of leaving indemnity upon a uantum meruit in proportion tothe period of his service completed "ithin a year'P

Hhether or not the instant cases ualify as a class suit'

NGRC agreed "ith the $@ dministrator that the laor cases cannot e treated asa class suit for the simple reason that not all the complainants "or%ed in .ahrainand therefore, the su?ect matter of the action, the claims arising from the .ahrain

la", is not of common or general interest to all the complainants'

Claimants insist that all their claims could properly e consolidated in a :class suit:ecause :all the named complainants have similar money claims and similar rightssought irrespective of "hether they "or%ed in .ahrain, Lnited ra @mirates or inu Dhai, Giya or in any part of the +iddle @ast: (Rollo, pp' 3743


12/182

respective claims' principle asic to the concept of :class suit: is that plainti9srought on the record must fairly represent and protect the interests of the others(Dimayuga v' Court of Industrial Relations, 11 $hil' 7* 1*72J)' ;or this matter, theclaimants "ho "or%ed in .ahrain can not e allo"ed to sue in a class suit in a

?udicial proceeding' The most that can e accorded to them under the Rules ofCourt is to e allo"ed to ?oin as plainti9s in one complaint (Revised Rules of Court,

Rule 3, Bec' 6)'

The Court is etra4cautious in allo"ing class suits ecause they are the eceptionsto the condition sine ua non, reuiring the ?oinder of all indispensale parties'

In an improperly instituted class suit, there "ould e no prolem if the decisionsecured is favorale to the plainti9s' The prolem arises "hen the decision isadverse to them, in "hich case the others "ho "ere impleaded y their self4appointed representatives, "ould surely claim denial of due process'

The claimants in #'R' No' 15226 also urged that the $@ dministrator and NGRCshould have declared tty' ;lorante De Castro guilty of :forum shopping, amulance

chasing activities, falsi=cation, duplicity and other unprofessional activities: and hisappearances as counsel for some of the claimants as illegal (Rollo, pp' 3


13/182

The factual setting necessary to a clear understanding of the instant petition forcertiorari needs to e restated' $lainti9 lert sued Lniversity $ulishing Company,Inc' for reach of contract' lert died efore the case proceeded to trial, and /ustoR' lert, his estate>s administrator, "as sustituted' ;inally, defendant>s liaility"as determined y this Court in G417!27' $lainti9 "as to recover $17,' "ithlegal interest from ?udicial demand'

;rom the inception of the suit elo" up to the time the ?udgment in G417!27 "as toe eecuted, the corporate eistence of university $ulishing Company, Inc'appears to have een ta%en for granted, and "as not then put in issue' 0o"ever,"hen the Court of ;irst Instance of +anila issued on /uly !!, 1*61 an order ofeecution against Lniversity $ulishing Company, Inc', a ne" prolem cropped up'.y virtue of this "rit, plainti9>s counsel and the Bheri9 of the City of +anila "ent tosee /ose +' ruego "ho signed the contract "ith plainti9 on ehalf and as $residentof Lniversity $ulishing Company, Inc' They then discovered that no such entityeists' veri=cation made at the Becurities and @change Commission con=rmedthis fact' n /uly 31, 1*61, said Commission issued a certi=cation :that the recordsof this Commission do not sho" the registration of LNI@RBITU $L.GIB0IN# C',

INC', either as a corporation or partnership': ! This triggered a veri=ed petition inthe court elo" on ugust 1, 1*61 for the issuance of a "rit of eecution orderingthe Bheri9 of +anila to cause the satisfaction of the ?udgment against the assetsand properties of /ose +' ruego as the real defendant in the case'

ll along, /ose +' ruego and his la" =rm "ere counsel for the Lniversity $ulishingCompany, Inc'

Instead of informing the lo"er court that it had in its possession copies of itscerti=cate of registration, its articles of incorporation, its y4la"s and all other papermaterials to its disputed corporate eistence, Lniversity $ulishing Company, Inc'chose to remain silent' n ugust 11, 1*61, Lniversity $ulishing Company, Inc', ycounsel ruego, +amaril and ssociates (the la" =rm of /ose +' ruego aforesaid)merely countered plainti9s petition for eecution as against ruego "ith an uns"ornmanifestation in court that :said /ose +' ruego is not a party to this case,: and,therefore, plainti9>s petition should e denied'3

Respondent court, presided over y 0is 0onor, /udge #audencio Cloriel, onBeptemer *, 1*61, came up "ith an order, "hich reads thus&

It appearing that /ose +' ruego against "hom the ?udgment rendered herein issought to e enforced is not a party to this case, plainti9>s motion =led on ugust1, 1*61 is herey denied'5

$lainti9 appealed to this Court on this sole issue& :The lo"er court erred in denyingthe plainti94appellant>s petition praying that the ?udgment rendered against thealleged corporation, the aove4named defendant4appellee, e eecuted against thepersonal assets and properties of /ose +' ruego, the real party to this case':

In an etended opinion "ritten y +r' /ustice /ose $' .engon, this Court in G41*11


14/182

The fact of non4registration of Lniversity $ulishing Co', Inc' in the Becurities and@change Commission has not een disputed' Defendant "ould only raise the pointthat :Lniversity $ulishing Co', Inc': and not /ose +' ruego, is the party defendant8therey assuming that :Lniversity $ulishing Co', Inc': is an eisting corporation"ith an independent ?uridical personality' $recisely, ho"ever, on account of the non4registration it cannot e considered a corporation, not even a corporation de facto

(0all vs' $iccio,


15/182

.y :due process of la": "e mean :a la" "hich hears efore it condemns8 "hichproceeds upon inuiry, and renders ?udgment only after trial'''' (5 Hheaton, L'B'71


16/182

/ose +' ruego, the president and counsel of Lniversity $ulishing Company, Inc',for the =rst time appeared in propria persona efore this Court as a :memer of the$hilippine .ar, private citien': 0e pointedly stated that he did not sumit to the

?urisdiction of this Court' 0e "anted, though, that his side of the case e heard' 0eformally ?oined hands "ith Lniversity $ulishing Company, Inc' on the plea of dueprocess in his favor' 0e insisted that he "as not a party to this litigation'

The resolution of this Court, on /une 16, 1*67, etensively d"elt on the due processplea of /ose +' ruego, thus&

It may e "orth noting again that /ose +' ruego started the negotiation "hichculminated in the contract et"een the parties, signing said contract as president ofLniversity $ulishing Co', Inc' Gi%e"ise he "as the one "ho made partial paymentsup to the amount of $2,' for and in ehalf of Lniversity $ulishing Co', Inc' 0ealso appeared not only as a "itness ut as a la"yer, signing some pleadings ormotions in defense of Lniversity $ulishing Co', Inc', although in other instances it isone of his associates or memer of his la" =rm "ho did so' no"n is the fact thateven a duly eisting corporation can only move and act through natural persons' In

this case it "as /ose +' ruego "ho moved and acted as or for Lniversity $ulishingCo', Inc'

It is elemental that the courts can only decide the merits of a given suit according tothe records that are in the case' It is true that in the t"o previous cases decided ythis Court, the =rst, a"arding damages (G4*3), the second, clarifying the amountof $17,' a"arded as such (G417!27), the corporate eistence of Lniversity$ulishing Co', Inc' as a legal entity "as merely ta%en for granted'

0o"ever, "hen the said issue "as suarely presented efore the court, andLniversity $ulishing Co', Inc', chose to %eep the courts in the dar% y "ithholdingpertinent documents and papers in its possession and control, Court had to decidethe points raised according to the records of the case and "hatever related mattersnecessarily included therein' 0ence, as a conseuence of the certi=cation of theBecurities and @change Commission that its records >do not sho" the registrationof Lniversity $ulishing Co', Inc', either as a corporation or partnership> this Courtconcluded that y virtue of its non4registration it cannot e considered acorporation' He further said that it has therefore no personality separate from /ose+' ruego and that ruego "as in reality the one "ho ans"ered and litigatedthrough his o"n la" =rm as counsel' Btated other"ise, "e found that ruego "as infact, if not in name, the defendant (Decision, p' 6)' Indeed, the ?udge of the court of=rst instance "rote in his decision thus& :Defendant ruego (all along the ?udge "hopens this decision considered that the defendant here is the president of theLniversity $ulishing Co', Inc' since it "as he "ho really made the contract "ith

/ustice lert)': (Decision of C;I, p' *, uoted in plainti94appellant>s rief, p' 1)'nd this portion of the decision made y the court a uo "as never uestioned ythe defendant'

The aove statement made y the court a uo in its decision compelled this Courtto carefully eamine the facts surrounding the dispute starting from the time of thenegotiation of the usiness proposition, follo"ed y the signing of the contract8considered the ene=ts received8 too% into account the partial payments made, the


17/182

litigation conducted, the decisions rendered and the appeals underta%en' fter thusconsidering the facts and circumstances, %eeping in mind that even "ith regard tocorporations sho"n as duly registered and eisting, "e have in many a case piercedthe veil of corporate =ction to administer the ends of ?ustice, (rnold vs' Hillits K$atterson, Gtd', 55 $hil' 6358 oppel ($hil'), Inc' vs' Uatco, 22 $hil' 5*68 Ga CampanaCo9ee ;actory, Inc' vs' aisahan ng mga +anggaga"a sa Ga Campana, *3 $hil' 168

+arvel .uilding Corporation vs' David, *5 $hil' 3268 +adrigal Bhipping Co', Inc' vsgilvie, G4


18/182

nd on the issue of "hether or not the certi=cate of registration, the articles ofincorporation, the y4la"s and the certi=cate of the reconstitution of the recordspro9ered y the Lniversity $ulishing Company, Inc' should e admitted, this Court,in the said resolution of the motion for reconsideration, in part said&

Defendant4appellee could have presented the foregoing papers efore the lo"er

court to counter the evidence of non4registration, ut defendant4appellee did not doso' It could have reconstituted its records at that stage of the proceedings, insteadof only on pril 1, 1*67, after decision herein "as promulgated'

s far as this case is concerned, therefore, Lniversity $ulishing Co', Inc' must edeemed as unregistered, since y defendant4appellee>s choice the record sho"s itto e so' Defendant4appellee apparently sought to delay the eecution y remainingunregistered per the certi=cation of the Becurities and @change Commission' It "asonly "hen eecution "as to e carried out, any"ay, against it andor its president Aand almost 1* years after the approval of the la" authoriing reconstitution A that

it reconstituted its records to sho" its registration, therey once more attempting todelay the payment of plainti9>s claim, long since ad?udged meritorious' Deciding,therefore, as "e must, this particular case on its record as sumitted y the parties,defendant4appellee>s pro9ered evidence of its corporate eistence cannot at thisstage e considered to alter the decision reached herein' This is not to preclude infuture cases the consideration of properly sumitted evidence as to defendant4appellee>s corporate eistence'

H0@R@;R@, the motion for reconsideration and for leave to =le original papers notin the record, is herey denied'

rmed "ith the aforementioned decision and resolution of this Court in G41*11


19/182

out y this Court in G41*11s order of +ay !, 1*66, held in aeyance until the termination of thesupplementary proceedings, "hich the court thereupon granted, to allo" ruego topresent evidence in support of his opposition to the motion for reconsideration'

n +ay !


20/182

had long een =nished and decided y this Court, /udge #audencio Cloriel deniedplainti9>s motion for eecution'

0ence, this petition for a "rit of certiorari and mandamus'

1' Hhen this case "as elevated to this Court for the fourth time in G41*11


21/182

H0@R@;R@, the orders complained of are herey declared void and of no legalforce and e9ect' The "rit of preliminary in?unction issued in this case on ctoer !6,1*6 is herey made =nal' Costs against respondent .or?a'

The liaility of ruego has een estalished so plainly in the decision and resolutionin G41*11< that there could not e any uiling as to the import of the "ords there

used' Case G41*11< "as rought into eing ecause precisely /udge Cloriel ruledthat eecution could not e issued against /ose +' ruego upon the ground, so hesaid in his appealed order, that ruego "as not a party to the action' This Courtthere reversed /udge #audencio Cloriel'

In the circumstances of this case, "e are constrained to articulate a numer ofpossiilities& that /udge #audencio Cloriel either (1) did not read our decision in G41*11


22/182

?udgment on the case concerned (rt' *, C'C'), and he has only one legal "ay to dothat'2

He rule that ecause of the foregoing circumstances, /udge #audencio Clorielacted "ith grave ause of discretion' nd certiorari lies' s counsel and the Bheri9came to %no" that the corporation did not legally eist' ruego could have veryeasily caused the corporation to pay' r did he thin% that the corporation couldevade payment, since the records of the corporation in the Becurities and @changeCommission had not yet een reconstitutedV The resultant e9ect is that after longyears of ligation, plainti9 is still left holding the ag' s this Court noted in G41*11


23/182

on the appeal ta%en y plainti9 in G41*11s pre?udice': *

This is not the =rst time that this Court has ordered the eecution of a ?udgmentagainst a person "ho "as not formally named as party defendant in the action' In aseries of cases, sustantial in numer, 1 this Court>s stand has een consistentthat the ?udgment for payment of ac% salaries of oFcers entitled to reinstatementmay, in e9ect, e enforced against the city or municipality, although not y nameimpleaded in the suit' Reasons therefore are concretely epressed in +anguat vs'smeWa, supra, in this "ise&

The necessity of ma%ing the City a respondent herein is ased upon its right todefend itself, as demanded y the reuirements of due process' 0o"ever, these

reuirement have een sustantially complied "ith in the case at ar' The partiesherein have handled the case, and the same "as heard and decided in the lo"ercourt, as if the City had een named respondent in the pleadings' The oFcerreuired y la" :to cause to e defended all suits against the City:, namely, itsmayor (Bec'


24/182

eecution aforesaid, "e pronounced that "hen petitioner Torres testi=ed in the courtelo", she had her day in court and had laid suarely efore said court the issue ofo"nership' He then eplicitly stated that the fact that petitioner "as not formallymade a party defendant is a mere technicality that does not serve the interest of

?ustice'

In the end, "e =nd it pertinent to uote from the early case of 0errera vs' .arretto,!7 $hil' !57, !21, thus&

''' The oFce of the "rit of certiorari has een reduced to the correction of defects of?urisdiction solely and cannot legally e used for any other purpose' It is truly anetraordinary remedy and, in this ?urisdiction, its use is restricted to truly etra4ordinary cases A cases in "hich the action of the inferior court is "holly void8 "hereany further steps in the case "ould result in a "aste of time and money and "ouldproduce no result "hatever8 "here the parties, or their privies, "ould e utterlydeceived8 "here a =nal ?udgment or decree "ould e nought ut a snare and adelusion, deciding nothing, protecting noody, a ?udicial pretention, a recordedfalsehood, a standing menace' It is only to avoid such results as these that a "rit of

certiorari is issuale8 and even here an appeal "ill lie if the aggrieved party prefersto prosecute it'

;or the reasons given, the petition for certiorari and mandamus prayed for herein isherey granted8 and

(a) The orders of /udge #audencio Cloriel of +arch 7, +ay !, and /uly 13, 1*66 areherey set aside and declared null and void8 and

() The Court a uo is herey directed forth"ith to issue a "rit of eecution againstrespondent Lniversity $ulishing Company, Inc' andor /ose +' ruego'

Trele costs shall e paid y respondent /ose +' ruego' Bo ordered'

E1IDENCE

G.R. No. !708 Se*+ember !6 20!!EENA ANE DARTE %e+,+,o'ers. MIGE SAME A.E. DRANRes*o'e'+.

$reponderance of evidence only reuires that evidence e greater or moreconvincing than the opposing evidence'1

;actual ntecedents

This petition arose from a suit7 for collection of sum of money =led y respondent+iguel Bamuel '@' Duran6 against petitioner @lena /ane Duarte "ith .ranch 7 ofthe +unicipal Trial Court in Cities (+TCC), Ceu'

ccording to respondent, on ;eruary 15, !!, he o9ered to sell a laptop computerfor the sum of $17,' to petitioner thru the help of a common friend, /osephineDy (Dy)'2 Bince petitioner "as undecided, respondent left the laptop "ith petitioner


25/182

for t"o days'< n ;eruary 16, !!, petitioner told respondent that she "as "illingto uy the laptop on installment'* Respondent agreed8 thus, petitioner gave$7,' as initial payment and promised to pay $3,' on ;eruary 1


26/182

$etitioner li%e"ise denies the eistence of a contract of sale, insisting that thelaptop "as not sold to her ut "as given as a security for respondentSs det' Toprove that there "as no contract of sale, petitioner calls attention to respondentSsfailure to present a "ritten contract of sale'55 Bhe claims that under the Btatute of;rauds, a contract of sale to e enforceale must e in "riting'57 Bhe also imputeserror on the part of the C in giving "eight and credence to the receipt dated

;eruary 1


27/182

date respondent received the RTC rder dated +ay 13, !5 denying his motion forreconsideration of the RTC Decision dated +arch 1*, !5 or until /une 11, !5,"ithin "hich to =le his $etition for Revie" "ith the C' Thus, "e =nd that "hen he=led the $etition for Revie" "ith the C on /une 1, !5, his period to appeal hadnot yet lapsed'

There "as a contract of sale et"een the parties

s to "hether there "as a contract of sale et"een the parties, "e hold that there"as, and the asence of a "ritten contract of sale does not mean other"ise' contract of sale is perfected the moment the parties agree upon the o?ect of thesale, the price, and the terms of payment'6 nce perfected, the parties are oundy it "hether the contract is veral or in "riting ecause no form is reuired'61Contrary to the vie" of petitioner, the Btatute of ;rauds does not apply in thepresent case as this provision applies only to eecutory, and not to completed,eecuted or partially eecuted contracts'6! In this case, the contract of sale hadeen partially eecuted ecause the possession of the laptop "as alreadytransferred to petitioner and the partial payments had een made y her' Thus, the

asence of a "ritten contract is not fatal to respondentSs case' Respondent onlyneeded to sho" y a preponderance of evidence that there "as an oral contract ofsale, "hich he did y sumitting in evidence his o"n aFdavit, the aFdavit of his"itness Dy, the receipt dated ;eruary 1


28/182

The a"ard for attorneySs fees and litigation epenses "as proper' Neither do "e =ndany error in the a"ard of attorneySs fees and litigation epenses'

SMMAR$ RES

FORAIDA TERAA - erss - ON. ANTONIO DE SAGN

The respondent ntonio Bimuangco (respondent) o"ned a house and lot at 13< /'$'Gaurel Bt', Nasugu, .atangas, "hich he leased to the petitioner' Bometime in 1**6,the petitioner demolished the leased house and erected a ne" one in its place' Therespondent alleged that this "as done "ithout his consent'

The petitioner allegedly also gave the materials from the demolished house to hersister, "ho uilt a house ad?acent to the respondents property'


29/182

!' rdering the said defendant to pay the amount of ;ive Thousand $esos($7,') as ttorneys fees8 and3' To pay the costs of suit'

Lna"are that a decision had already een rendered, the petitioner =led a letterentitled ahilingan,!6J to "hich she attached her position paper and the aFdavits

of her "itnesses'!2J The sumission "as essentially a motion for reconsideration ofthe denial of motion for etension of time' n Novemer 6, 1*22, the +TC deniedthe petitioners ahilingan as follo"s&

Defendant ida Teranias 0IGIN#N dated Novemer 7, 1**2 is D@NI@D for eingmoot and academic on account of the decision on the merits rendered y this courtdated Novemer 5, 1**2 relative to the instant case'

$etitioner then =led a Notice of ppeal on Novemer 1!, 1**2' !*J The records ofthe case "ere ordered elevated to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) "here the case "asdoc%eted as Civil Case No' 53*'

T0@ RTCB D@CIBIN3J

The RTC rendered ?udgment aFrming the decision of the +TC on ;eruary !6, 1**


30/182

of the +TC' It noted that& 1) the +TC rendered its decision efore the petitioner "asale to =le her position paper and the aFdavit of her "itnesses8 !) the rule on thetimeliness of =ling pleadings may e relaed on euitale considerations8 and 3) thedenial of the petitioners motion for reconsideration andor ne" trial "ill result to amiscarriage of ?ustice' Thus, elieving that it "as euitale to rela the rules on thetimeliness of the =ling of pleadings, the RTC remanded the case to the +TC for

further proceedings, after giving the respondent the opportunity to sumit hisposition paper and the aFdavits of his "itnesses' The fallo reads&

H0@R@;R@, on considerations of euity and sustantial ?ustice, and in the light ofBection 6, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court, the ?udgment of this Court dated ;eruary!6, 1**


31/182

pointed out y la" or y these rules, any suitale process or mode of proceedingmay e adopted "hich appears conformale to the spirit of said la" or rules'

Becond, Rule 5 governs appeals from the +TC to the RTC' No"here in Rule 5 isthere a provision similar to Bection 6 of Rule 32'

Third, Bection 6 of Rule 32 contemplates a motion for ne" trial and forreconsideration =led efore a trial court a uo' The RTC in this case "as acting as anappellate court8 the petitioners motion for ne" trial and reconsideration "asdirected against the appellate ?udgment of the RTC, not the original ?udgment of thetrial court'

;ourth, after Repulic ct No' 631 mandated municipal trial courts to record theirproceedings, a trial de novo at the appellate level may no longer e conducted' Theappellate courts may instead revie" the evidence and records transmitted to it ythe trial court' Bince the petitioner is as%ing the court to revie" the records of the+TC, inclusive of her position paper and the aFdavits of her "itnesses, it is alsoimportant to give the respondent an opportunity to =le his position paper and the

aFdavits of his "itnesses efore the +TC renders a ?udgment' It is the +TC or thetrial court that has the ?urisdiction to do that'

T0@ C D@CIBIN

The C aFrmed the RTC in a decision promulgated on Beptemer 2, !1'37J TheC noted that the RTCs order of remand "as not ?ust ased on euity andsustantial ?ustice, ut "as also ased on la", speci=cally Bection 6 of Rule 137'

Thus, the C ruled that the RTC did not err in remanding the case to the +TC andordering the conduct of further proceedings after giving the respondent anopportunity to present his position paper and the aFdavits of his "itnesses' Thisruling did not satisfy petitioner, giving "ay to the present petition'

T0@ $@TITIN

.efore this Court, the petitioner alleges& 1) that the respondent made a reuest forthe petitioner to vacate the su?ect property ecause his nearest of %in needed it8 !)that she "as only going to vacate the premises if she "ere reimursed the actualcost incurred in uilding the said house836J 3) that the case e decided on theasis of the entire record of the proceedings in the court of origin, includingmemoranda and riefs sumitted y the parties, instead of eing remanded to the+TC'

In his Comment32J and +emorandum,3


32/182

The petitioner sumits the follo"ing as the issue to e decided&

HJhether under the Rules of Bummary $rocedure, the Regional Trial Court, as "ellas the Court of ppeals, may order the case remanded to the +TC after the plainti9,herein respondent, failed to sumit evidence in support of his complaint ecause his

$osition $aper, aFdavit of "itnesses and evidence, "ere not sumitted on time andthe etension of time to =le the same "as denied ecause it is prohiited under theRules on Bummary $rocedure'

"hich "e rea% do"n into the follo"ing su4issues& 1) "hether a remand is proper8!) "hether the Court should appreciate the petitioners position paper and theaFdavits of her "itnesses8 and 3) "hether the complaint for unla"ful detainershould e dismissed'

T0@ CLRTB RLGIN#

The petition is partly meritorious'

Remand Not Necessary

He =nd that a remand of the case to the lo"er courts is no longer necessary, giventhe pleadings and sumissions =led, and the records of the proceedings elo"' remand "ould delay the overdue resolution of this case (originally =led "ith the +TCon pril 16, 1**2), and "ould run counter to the spirit and intent of the RB$'5J

$etitioners $osition $aper and the Fdavits of 0er Hitnesses Cannot .e dmitted

Bhould the Court admit the petitioners position paper and the aFdavits of her"itnesses attached to her ahilinganV

The intent and terms of the RB$ oth spea% against the lierality that the petitionersees' .y its epress terms, the purpose of the RB$ is to achieve an epeditious andinepensive determination of the cases they cover, among them, forcile entry andunla"ful detainer cases'51J To achieve this o?ective, the RB$ epressly prohiitcertain motions and pleadings that could cause delay, among them, a motion foretension of time to =le pleadings, aFdavits or any other paper' If the etension forthe =ling of these sumissions cannot e allo"ed, "e elieve it illogical andincongruous to admit a pleading that is already =led late' @9ectively, "e "ould thenallo" indirectly "hat "e prohiit to e done directly' It is for this reason that in Don

Tino Realty Development Corporation v' ;lorentino,5!J aleit on the issue of late=ling of an ans"er in a summary proceeding, "e stated that tJo admit a lateans"er is to put a premium on dilatory measures, the very mischief that the rulessee% to redress'

The strict adherence to the reglementary period prescried y the RB$ is due to theessence and purpose of these rules' The la" loo%s "ith compassion upon a party"ho has een illegally dispossessed of his property' Due to the urgency presentedy this situation, the RB$ provides for an epeditious and inepensive means ofreinstating the rightful possessor to the en?oyment of the su?ect property'53J This


33/182

ful=lls the need to resolve the e?ectment case uic%ly' Thus, "e cannot re"ard thepetitioners late =ling of her position paper and the aFdavits of her "itnesses yadmitting them no"'

The failure of one party to sumit his position paper does not ar at all the +TCfrom issuing a ?udgment on the e?ectment complaint' Bection 1 of the RB$ states&

Bection 1' Rendition of ?udgment' Hithin thirty (3) days after receipt of the lastaFdavits and position papers, or the epiration of the period for =ling the same, thecourt shall render ?udgment' Lnderscoring supplied'J

0o"ever, should the court =nd it necessary to clarify certain material facts, it may,during the said period, issue an order specifying the matters to e clari=ed, andreuire the parties to sumit aFdavits or other evidence on the said matters "ithinten (1) days from receipt of said order' /udgment shall e rendered "ithin =fteen(17) days after the receipt of the last aFdavit or the epiration of the period for=ling the same'

The court shall not resort to the foregoing procedure ?ust to gain time for therendition of the ?udgment'

Thus, the situation otaining in the present case has een duly provided for y theRules8 it "as correct to render a ?udgment, as the +TC did, after one party failed to=le their position paper and supporting aFdavits'

That a position paper is not indispensale to the courts authority to render?udgment is further evident from "hat the RB$ provides regarding a preliminaryconference& on the asis of the pleadings and the stipulations and admissions madey the parties, ?udgment may e rendered "ithout the need for further proceedings,in "hich event the ?udgment shall e rendered "ithin 3 days from the issuance ofthe order'55J Thus, the proceedings may stop at that point, "ithout need for thesumission of position papers' In such a case, "hat "ould e etant in the recordand the ases for the ?udgment "ould e the complaint, ans"er, and the record ofthe preliminary conference'

Lnla"ful detainerThe special civil action for unla"ful detainer has the follo"ing essential reuisites&1) the fact of lease y virtue of a contract, epress or implied8!) the epiration or termination of the possessor>s right to hold possession83) "ithholding y the lessee of possession of the land or uilding after theepiration or termination of the right to possess85) letter of demand upon lessee to pay the rental or comply "ith the terms of thelease and vacate the premises8 and7) the =ling of the action "ithin one year from the date of the last demandreceived y the defendant'57J

Reuisites 1, 5, and 7 have een duly estalished' The presence of the Contract ofGease is undisputed8 the letter of demand "as sent on ;eruary 3, 1**2, andreceived y the petitioner on ;eruary 1, 1**28 and the action "as =led on pril16, 1**2, "ell "ithin the one4year period from the letter of demand' ;or ourdetermination is "hether the petitioners right to possess the su?ect property may


34/182

e terminated y virtue of her violation of the terms of the contract' If "e ans"er inthe aFrmative, her continued detention of the property is illegal'

Bection 1623(3) of the Civil Code ans"ers this uestion y providing that the lessormay terminate the lease contract for violation of any of the conditions or termsagreed upon,56J and may ?udicially e?ect the lessee'52J ne of the stipulated

terms of the parties Contract of Gease, as narrated aove, is that no alterations maye made on the leased property "ithout the %no"ledge and consent of the lessor'

The issue in this case is eyond the fact of alteration since it is not disputed that thepetitioner demolished the house under lease and uilt a ne" one' The crucial issueis "hether the demolition "as "ith or "ithout the %no"ledge and consent of therespondent'

The petitioner contends that the Court should not give credence to the respondentsclaim that he neither had %no"ledge of nor gave his consent to her acts' Bheargued that the respondent had the urden of proving this allegation "ith positiveevidence after she frontally denied it in her ans"er' Bince the respondent failed todischarge this urden, she argues that she no longer needed to prove her defense

that the demolition and construction "ere done "ith the respondents %no"ledgeand consent'5


35/182

He do not =nd this denial to e speci=c as the petitioner failed to set forth thesustance of the matters in "hich she relied upon to support her denial' Thepetitioner merely alleged that consent "as given8 ho" and "hy, she did not say' Ifindeed consent "ere given, it "ould have een easy to =ll in the details' Bhe couldhave stated in her pleadings that she verally informed the respondent of the needfor the repairs, or "rote him a letter' Bhe could have stated his response, and ho" it

"as conveyed, "hether verally or in "riting' Bhe could have stated "hen theconsent "as solicited and procured' These, she failed to do' @rgo, the petitioner isdeemed to have admitted the material allegations in the complaint'

Becond, oth parties failed to present evidence other than the allegations in theirpleadings' Thus, the court may "eigh the parties allegations against each other' Thepetitioner presented a general denial, "hile the respondent set forth an aFrmativeassertion' This Court has time and again said that a general denial cannot e givenmore "eight than an aFrmative assertion'

Damages recoverale in an unla"ful detainer action are limited to rentals orreasonale compensation for the use of the property'

This Court has no ?urisdiction to a"ard the reimursement prayed for y othparties' .oth parties see% damages other than rentals or reasonale compensationfor the use of the property, "hich are the only forms of damages that may erecovered in an unla"ful detainer case'7!J Rule 2, Bection 12 of the Rules of Courtauthories the trial court to order the a"ard of an amount representing arrears ofrent or reasonale compensation for the use and occupation of the premises if it=nds that the allegations of the complaint are true'

The rationale for limiting the %ind of damages recoverale in an unla"ful detainercase "as eplained in raos v' Court of ppeals,75J "herein the Court held that&

The rule is settled that in forcile entry or unla"ful detainer cases, the onlydamage that can e recovered is the fair rental value or the reasonalecompensation for the use and occupation of the leased property' The reason for thisis that in such cases, the only issue raised in e?ectment cases is that of rightfulpossession8 hence, the damages "hich could e recovered are those "hich theplainti9 could have sustained as a mere possessor, or those caused y the loss ofthe use and occupation of the property, and not the damages "hich he may havesu9ered ut "hich have no direct relation to his loss of material possession'

n action for reimursement or for recovery of damages may not e properly ?oined"ith the action for e?ectment' The former is an ordinary civil action reuiring a full4lo"n trial, "hile an action for unla"ful detainer is a special civil action "hichreuires a summary procedure' The ?oinder of the t"o actions is speci=callyen?oined y Bection 7 of Rule ! of the Rules of Court, "hich provides&

Bection 7' /oinder of causes of action' party may in one pleading assert, in thealternative or other"ise, as many causes of action as he may have against anopposing party, su?ect to the follo"ing conditions&


36/182

(a) The party ?oining the causes of action shall comply "ith the rules on ?oinder ofparties8() The ?oinder shall not include special civil actions or actions governed y specialrules8(c) Hhere the causes of action are et"een the same parties ut pertain todi9erent venues or ?urisdictions, the ?oinder may e allo"ed in the Regional Trial

Court provided one of the causes of action falls "ithin the ?urisdiction of said courtand the venue lies therein8 and(d) Hhere the claims in all the causes of action are principally for recovery ofmoney, the aggregate amount claimed shall e the test of ?urisdiction'Lnderscoring supplied'J

H0@R@;R@, the petition is $RTIGGU #RNT@D' The decision of the Court ofppeals in C4#'R' No' B$45


37/182

e?ectment case' Bhe eplained, ho"ever, that it "as granted in the interest of?ustice'

In her Comment, respondent stated&

:The rder su?ect of this complaint is the rder dated /anuary 13, 1**2 dismissing

the complaint for e?ectment for failure of the plainti9 to appear for preliminaryconference and more importantly her la"yer, tty' /ose Buing, "ho "as dulyempo"ered to appear for preliminary conference y virtue of a Bpecial $o"er ofttorney' Chief

Immediately upon learning the said order of dismissal and a"arding of attorneysfees, tty' Buing =led a +otion for Reconsideration on /anuary 12, 1**2 (nne ::)stating that he failed to appear due to a sudden ecruciating stomach pain' 0efurther stated that his Becretary called the Court ut to no avail until =nally the callcame through and she "as informed that the case "as dismissed' ver theo?ection of the defendant that the +otion for Reconsideration "as a prohiitedpleading "hich this $residing /udge is fully a"are of under the Rule on Bummary

$rocedure, the +otion for Reconsideration "as nonetheless granted in the interestof ?ustice' The uestion is poised' re the actuations of ?udges to e governedstrictly y the Rule on Bummary $rocedure despite their elief in good faith that inspecial cases, its oservance "ould result in a miscarriage of ?usticeV This $residing

/udge does not thin% so' /udges are supposed to responsile $ulic Fcials andshould e ale to perceive and discern circumstances "hich might lead tomiscarriage of ?ustice, thus, negating the very purpose and essence of the Rule onBummary $rocedure' The Rule on Bummary $rocedure is not a straight ?ac%et and itis elieved it "as never meant to e that' This is the reason "hy "e have in theRules of Court Bection 7 (g) of Rule 137 "hich is one of the inherent po"ers of theCourt, that is, to amend and control its process and orders so as to ma%e themconformale to la" and ?ustice' Ignorance of the la", to the mind of theundersigned, is the act of a ?udge in ta%ing legal steps or adopting procedureun%no"ingly a"are that they are contrary to estalished Rules "hich should e%no"n to the ?udge' This $residing /udge in this particular case "as fully a"are ofthe Rule on Bummary $rocedure' Bhe fully %ne" that the +otion for Reconsideration"as a prohiited pleading ut she still considered it ecause to deny it "ould resultin a miscarriage of ?ustice' It "as not a capricious, "himsical and despotic act "henvie"ed in the light of this circumstance'

Hith respect to the allegation that the charge of ignorance of the la" "ascompounded y the failure to issue a "rit of eecution, it ears stressing that therder dated /anuary 13, 1**2 never gained =nality ecause the plainti9 "as ale to=le the +otion for Reconsideration "ithin the =fteen (17) day period, that is, on

/anuary 12, 1**2' .ut even if it is argued validly that the +otion for Reconsiderationeing a prohiited pleading did not interrupt the running of the period of appeal,still the said rder did not gain =nality as far as defendant #loria Gucas is concernedecause as the record sho"s, it "as she "ho received the rder, not her la"yer,tty' Bulit': @sm

The complaint and the Comment "ere referred to the Fce of the Courtdministrator for evaluation, report and recommendation after the case "as


38/182

doc%eted as an administrative matter' n ugust !7, 1**2, C in a +emorandum,sumitted the follo"ing =ndings&

:fter a careful perusal of the records of the case, "e =nd that respondent /udge;aros aused her discretion in granting the +otion for Reconsideration'

Respondent /udge ;aros maintained that she could not e guilty of gross ignoranceof the la" as she %no"s that a motion for reconsideration of ?udgment is aprohiited motion in an e?ectment case' Bhe eplained that although there isalready a ?udgment dismissing the case, she granted the plainti9s motion forreconsideration in the interest of ?ustice since the reasons stated in the motion forreconsideration are meritorious'

Respondent failed to realie that the =rst duty of the court is to apply the la" andthat "hen the la" is clear and unamiguous, there is no room for interpretation'lthough her intention "as good, this could not free her from liaility'

Respondent should have denied the motion since the plainti9 had other ?udicial

remedies li%e appeal':6J

The Fce of the Court dministrator recommended that respondent ?udge e =nedin the amount of $!,' for grave ause of discretion' The Court, ho"ever, =ndsthis recommendation "ithout factual and legal asis'

s a rule, a motion for reconsideration is a prohiited pleading under Bection 1* ofthe Revised Rule on Bummary $rocedure' Thus,

:B@C' 1*' $rohiited pleadings and motions' The follo"ing pleadings, motions, orpetitions shall not e allo"ed in the cases covered y this Rule'

(c) +otion for ne" trial, or for reconsideration of a ?udgment, or for reopening oftrial8

:

This rule, ho"ever, applies only "here the ?udgment sought to e reconsidered isone rendered on the merits' s held y the Court in an earlier case involving Bec' 17(c) of the Rules on Bummary $rocedure, later Bec' 1* (c) of the Revised Rules onBummary $rocedure e9ective Novemer 17, 1**1& :The motion prohiited y thisBection is that "hich see%s reconsideration of the ?udgment rendered y the courtafter trial on the merits of the case':2J 0ere, the order of dismissal issued yrespondent ?udge due to failure of a party to appear during the preliminaryconference is oviously not a ?udgment on the merits after trial of the case' 0ence,a motion for the reconsideration of such order is not the prohiited pleadingcontemplated under Bection 1* (c) of the present Rule on Bummary $rocedure'

Thus, respondent ?udge committed no grave ause of discretion, nor is she guilty ofignorance of the la", in giving due course to the motion for reconsideration su?ectof the present complaint' @smsc


39/182

CCRDIN#GU, the complaint =led against respondent /udge melia ' ;aros isDIB+IBB@D' B RD@R@D'

1IRGINIA GOCAN OISE GOCAN s. MERCEDES GOCAN

Respondents "ere stoc%holders of the ;eli #ochan and Bons Realty Corporationand the +actan Realty Development Corporation' Bometime in 1**6, respondentso9ered to sell their shares in the t"o corporations to the individual petitioners, theheirs of the late massador @stean #ochan, for and in consideration of the sum of$!,,'' $etitioners accepted and paid the said amount to respondents'ccordingly, respondents issued to petitioners the necessary Receipts'3J Inaddition, respondents eecuted their respective Release, Haiver and Euitclaim,5J"herein they undertoo% that they "ould not initiate any suit, action or complaintagainst petitioners for "hatever reason or purpose'

In turn, respondents, through Crispo #ochan, /r', reuired individual petitioners toeecute a promissory note,7J underta%ing not to divulge the actual consideration

they paid for the shares of stoc%' ;or this purpose, Crispo #ochan, /r' drafted adocument entitled promissory note in his o"n hand"riting and had the same signedy ;eli #ochan, III, Gouise #ochan and @stean #ochan, /r'

Lne%no"n to petitioners, Crispo #ochan, /r' inserted in the promissory note aphrase that says, Baid amount is in partial consideration of the sale'6J

n pril 3, 1**


40/182

unenforceaility of the oligation to convey real properties due to lac% of a "rittenmemorandum thereof, pursuant to the Btatute of ;rauds8 (c) etinguishment of theoligation y payment8 (d) "aiver, aandonment and renunciation y respondent ofall their claims against petitioners8 and (e) non4?oinder of indispensale parties'

n ugust 2, 1**


41/182

$etitioners, thus, rought the present petition for revie" anchored on the follo"inggrounds&

I'T0@ CLRT ; $$@GB C++ITT@D #R@ ND $G$.G@ @RRR IN ;INDIN#T0T T0@ CRR@CT DC@T ;@@B 0@ .@@N $ID'

II' T0@ CLRT ; $$@GB C++ITT@D #R@ @RRR IN R@BGIN# T0T ;@GIX#C0N III ND @[email protected] #C0N, /R' R@ NT [email protected]@ $RTI@B ND

T0@R@;R@ N@@D NT .@ I+$G@D@D B $RTI@B'1J

Respondents =led their Comment,11J arguing, in =ne, that petitioners are guilty offorum4shopping "hen they =led t"o petitions for certiorari "ith the Court ofppeals8 and that the Court of ppeals did not err in dismissing the petition forcertiorari'

The instant petition has merit'

The rule is "ell4settled that the court acuires ?urisdiction over any case only upon

the payment of the prescried doc%et fees' In the case of Bun Insurance Fce, Gtd'(BIG) v' suncion,1!J this Court held that it is not simply the =ling of the complaintor appropriate initiatory pleading, ut the payment of the prescried doc%et fee thatvests a trial court "ith ?urisdiction over the su?ect matter or nature of the action'

Respondents maintain that they paid the correct doc%et fees in the amount of$167,' "hen they =led the complaint "ith the trial court' $etitioners, on theother hand, contend that the complaint is in the nature of a real action "hich a9ectstitle to real properties8 hence, respondents should have alleged therein the value ofthe real properties "hich shall e the asis for the assessment of the correct doc%etfees'

The Court of ppeals found that the complaint "as one for speci=c performance andincapale of pecuniary estimation' He do not agree'

It is necessary to determine the true nature of the complaint in order to resolve theissue of "hether or not respondents paid the correct amount of doc%et fees therefor'In this ?urisdiction, the dictum adhered to is that the nature of an action isdetermined y the allegations in the ody of the pleading or complaint itself, ratherthan y its title or heading'13J The caption of the complaint elo" "asdenominated as one for speci=c performance and damages' The relief sought,ho"ever, is the conveyance or transfer of real property, or ultimately, the eecutionof deeds of conveyance in their favor of the real properties enumerated in theprovisional memorandum of agreement' Lnder these circumstances, the case elo""as actually a real action, a9ecting as it does title to or possession of real property'

In the case of 0ernande v' Rural .an% of Gucena,15J this Court held that a realaction is one "here the plainti9 see%s the recovery of real property or, as indicatedin section !(a) of Rule 5 (no" Bection 1, Rule 5 of the 1**2 Rules of Civil $rocedure),a real action is an action a9ecting title to or recovery of possession of real property'


42/182

It has also een held that "here a complaint is entitled as one for speci=cperformance ut nonetheless prays for the issuance of a deed of sale for a parcel ofland, its primary o?ective and nature is one to recover the parcel of land itself and,thus, is deemed a real action' In such a case, the action must e =led in the propercourt "here the property is located&

In this Court, the appellant insists that her action is one for speci=c performance,and, therefore, personal and transitory in nature'

This very issue "as considered and decided y this Court in the case of +anuel .'Rui vs' /'+' Tuason K Co', Inc' et al', G41


43/182


44/182

"as guilty of manifest partiality "arranting his inhiition from further hearing CivilCase No' [email protected]!1


45/182

Court (RTC) that had ?urisdiction over the case considering that the assessed valueof the property "as lo"er than $!,''

The trial court in its t"in orders of 7 and 1! Beptemer ! denied the motions todismiss holding that since the su?ect matter of the action "as eyond pecuniaryestimation it "as properly "ithin its ?urisdiction'3J Golita Copioso>s +otion for

Reconsideration "as denied,5J hence, she =led "ith the Court of ppeals a petitionfor certiorari and prohiition praying for the annulment of the t"in orders of the trialcourt "hich denied the motions to dismiss and at the same time maintaining herposition that the RTC had no ?urisdiction over the case ecause the assessed valueof the property "as elo" $!,''

The appellate court denied the petition thus aFrming the ?urisdiction of the RTCover the complaint for reconveyance' +otion for reconsideration thereon "assimilarly denied y the appellate court, hence this petition'

$etitioner Golita Copioso anchors her argument on Bec' 33, par' (3), of .'$' .lg' 1!*other"ise %no"n as The /udiciary Reorganiation ct of 1*


46/182

The la" on ?urisdiction of trial courts over civil cases is neither amiguous norconfusing' Bec' 33, par' (3), in relation to Bec' 1* par' (!) of .'$' 1!* as amended yR 26*1, deals "ith civil cases capale of pecuniary estimation' n the other hand,Bec' 33, par' (3), in relation to Bec' 1*, par' (1), applies to cases incapale ofpecuniary estimation'

Bec' 33, par' (3), in relation to Bec' 1*, par' (!), of .'$' 1!*, as amended y R 26*1,provides that in civil cases involving sum of money or title to, possession of, or anyinterest in real property, ?urisdiction is determined on the asis of the amount of theclaim or the assessed value of the real property involved, such that "here the sumof money or the assessed value of the real property does not eceed $!,', or$7,' in +etro +anila, ?urisdiction lies "ith the +TC8 and "here it eceeds thatamount, ?urisdiction is vested "ith the RTC'

Indeed, the present dispute pertains to the title, possession and interest of each ofthe contending parties over the contested property the assessed value of "hich falls"ithin the ?urisdictional range of the +TC' Nonetheless, the nature of the action

=led, the allegations set forth, and the reliefs prayed for, forestall its cogniance ythe +TC'

s can e readily gleaned from the records, the complaint "as for :Reconveyanceandor Recovery of Common $roperties Illegally Disposed, "ith nnulment of Balesand other Instruments of ;alse Conveyance, "ith Damages, and Restraining rder':$rivate respondents alleged therein that they "ere co4o"ners of the property along"ith their deceased rother ntonio Copioso8 and that in or aout 1**


47/182

her assertion that the instant complaint for reconveyance, considering the assessedvalue of the disputed property, falls "ithin the eclusive ?urisdiction of the +TC' .utas herein efore stated, the issue of title, o"nership andor possession thereof isintert"ined "ith the issue of annulment of sale and reconveyance hence "ithin theamit of the ?urisdiction of the RTC' The assessed value of the parcels of land thusecomes merely an incidental matter to e dealt "ith y the court, "hen necessary,

in the resolution of the case ut is not determinative of its ?urisdiction'

H0@R@;R@, the petition is D@NI@D' The 16 +ay !1 Decision of the Court ofppeals in C4#'R' B$ No' 6!* as "ell as its 3 /uly !1 Resolution denyingreconsideration thereof is ;;IR+@D' Costs against petitioner' B RD@R@D'

CASE OF ACTION

G.R. No. !7"87 Febr&r3 25 20!2%ADIA MERCADO 9ETA MERCADO 4ONIFACIA MERCADO DAMIANMERCADO &' EMMANE MERCADO 4ASCG %e+,+,o'ers s. S%OSES

AGEDO ES%INA &' ORDES ES%INA Res*o'e'+s.

n +ay cause of action is arred yprescription, laches and indefeasiility of title, and that the complaint does not statesuFcient cause of action against respondents "ho are uyers in good faith'3

;ailure to state a cause of action refers to the insuFciency of the pleading, and is aground for dismissal under Rule 16 of the Rules of Court'12

complaint states a cause of action if it avers the eistence of the three essentialelements of a cause of action, namely&

(a) The legal right of the plainti98() The correlative oligation of the defendant8 and(c) The act or omission of the defendant in violation of said legal right'1 predecessor4in4interest "as supposedly deprived ofo"nership of the su?ect /ot through an alleged fraudulent sale, the same hadalready een sold thrice' +oreover, since the su?ect property "as already coveredy a Torrens title at the time that respondents ought the same, the la" does notreuire them to go eyond "hat appears on the face of the title' The lot has, thus,passed to respondents, "ho are presumed innocent purchasers for value, in theasence of any allegation to the contrary'

$aragraph 3, Bection 73 of $residential Decree No' 17!* provides&

In all cases of registration procured y fraud, the o"ner may pursue all his legal andeuitale remedies against the parties to such fraud "ithout pre?udice, ho"ever, tothe rights of any i1moccnt holder for value of a certi=cate of title'

$etitioners> cause of action should, therefore, e directed not against respondents,"ho are innocent holders for value, ut against those "hom petitioners alleged tohave defrauded them'

.ased on the aove discussions, the Court no longer =nds any need to resolve theother issues raised in the instant petition'

H0@R@;R@, the petition for revie" on certiorari is D@NI@D' The pril !2, !7Decision and /uly 1!, !6 Resolution of the Court of ppeals in C4#'R' B$ No'


49/182

residence' They further alleged that despite their demand after a year, thepetitioner failed or refused to vacate the premises'

Despite the due service of the summons and copy of the complaint, the petitionerdid not =le her ans"er' The +TCC declared her in default upon the respondentsmotion to declare her in default, and proceeded to receive the respondents oral

testimony and documentary evidence' Thereafter, on Beptemer 13, 1***, the+TCC rendered ?udgment against her'

IBBL@B

1' Hhether or not the C correctly found that the RTC committed reversile errorin ruling on issues not raised y the petitioner in her appeal8!' Hhether or not the C correctly found that the complaint stated a valid causeof action8

RLGIN#

He grant the petition for revie"'

' s an appellate court, RTC may rule upon an issue not raised on appeal'

In its decision, the C ruled that the RTC could not resolve issues that "ere notassigned y the petitioner in her appeal memorandum, eplaining&

Indeed(,) He are rather perpleed "hy the Regional Trial Court, in arriving at itsdecision, discussed and ruled on issues or grounds "hich "ere never raised,assigned, or argued on y the Defendant4appellee in her appeal to the former' careful reading of the Defendant4appellees appeal memorandum clearly sho"s thatit only raised t"o (!) grounds, namely (a) alleged etrinsic fraud, () meritoriousdefenses ased on nullity of the Deed of Bale Instrument' nd yet the Trial Court, inits decision, ruled on issues not raised such as lac% of cause of action and no priordemand to vacate having een made'

nly errors assigned and properly argued on the rief and those necessarily relatedthereto, may e considered y the appellate court in resolving an appeal in a civilcase' .ased on said clear ?urisprudence, the court a uo committed grave ause ofdiscretion amounting to lac% of ?urisdiction "hen it resolved Defendant4appelleesappeal ased on grounds or issues not raised efore it, much less assigned yDefendant4appellee as an error'

Not only that' It is settled that an issue "hich "as not raised during the Trial in thecourt elo" "ould not e raised for the =rst time on appeal as to do so "ould eo9ensive to the asic rules of fair play, ?ustice and due process (ictorias +illing Co',Inc' vs' C, 333 BCR 663)' He can therefore appreciate $lainti9s4appellants dismaycaused y the Regional Trial Courts latant disregard of a asic and fundamentalright to due process'1J


50/182


51/182

s its compliance "ith the reuirement of Bection 36 of .atas $amansa.lg' 1!*toadopt special rules or procedures applicale to such cases in order to achieve anepeditious and inepensive determination thereof "ithout regard to technicalrules, the Court promulgated the 1**1 Revised Rules on Bummary $rocedure,"herey it institutionalied the summary procedure for all the =rst level courts'Bection !1 of the 1**1 Revised Rules on Bummary $rocedure speci=cally stated&

Bection !1' ppeal' The ?udgment or =nal order shall e appealale to theappropriate Regional Trial Court "hich shall decide the same in accordance "ithBection !! of .atas $amansa .lg' 1!*' The decision of the Regional Trial Court incivil cases governed y this Rule, including forcile entry and unla"ful detainer shalle immediately eecutory, "ithout pre?udice to a further appeal that may e ta%entherefrom' Bection 1 of Rule 2 shall e deemed repealed'

Gater on, the Court promulgated the 1**2 Rules of Civil $rocedure, e9ective on /uly1, 1**2, and incorporated in Bection 2 of Rule 5 thereof the directive to the RTC todecide appealed cases on the asis of the entire record of the proceedings had inthe court of origin and such memoranda as are =led,vi&

Bection 2' $rocedure in the Regional Trial Court'

(a) Lpon receipt of the complete record or the record on appeal, the cler% of court ofthe Regional Trial Court shall notify the parties of such fact'() Hithin =fteen (17) days from such notice, it shall e the duty of the appellant tosumit a memorandum "hich shall rieMy discuss the errors imputed to the lo"ercourt, a copy of "hich shall e furnished y him to the adverse party' Hithin =fteen(17) days from receipt of the appellants memorandum, the appellee may =le hismemorandum' ;ailure of the appellant to =le a memorandum shall e a ground fordismissal of the appeal'(c) Lpon the =ling of the memorandum of the appellee, or the epiration of theperiod to do so, the case shall e considered sumitted for decision' The Regional

Trial Court shall decide the case on the asis of the entire record of the proceedingshad in the court of origin and such memoranda as are =led' (n)

s a result, the RTC presently decides all appeals from the +TC ased on the entirerecord of the proceedings had in the court of origin and such memoranda or riefsas are =led in the RTC'

Uet, even "ithout the di9erentiation in the procedures of deciding appeals, thelimitation of the revie" to only the errors assigned and properly argued in theappeal rief or memorandum and the errors necessarily related to such assignederror sought not to have ostructed the C from resolving the unassigned issues yvirtue of their coming under one or several of the follo"ing recognied eceptions tothe limitation, namely&

(a) Hhen the uestion a9ects ?urisdiction over the su?ect matter8() +atters that are evidently plain or clerical errors "ithin contemplation of la"8(c) +atters "hose consideration is necessary in arriving at a ?ust decision andcomplete resolution of the case or in serving the interests of ?ustice or avoidingdispensing piecemeal ?ustice8


52/182

(d) +atters raised in the trial court and are of record having some earing on theissue sumitted that the parties failed to raise or that the lo"er court ignored8(e) +atters closely related to an error assigned8 and(f) +atters upon "hich the determination of a uestion properly assigned isdependent'13J

Conseuently, the C improperly disallo"ed the consideration and resolution of thet"o errors despite their eing& (a) necessary in arriving at a ?ust decision and acomplete resolution of the case8 and () matters of record having some earing onthe issues sumitted that the lo"er court ignored'

.' C correctly delved into and determined "hether or not complaint stated a causeof action

The RTC opined that the complaint failed to state a cause of action ecause theevidence sho"ed that there "as no demand to vacate made upon the petitioner'

The C disagreed, oserving in its appealed decision&

.ut "hat is "orse is that a careful reading of $lainti9s4appellants Complaint "ouldreadily reveal that they have suFciently estalished (sic) a cause of action againstDefendant4appellee' It is undisputed that as alleged in the complaint and testi=ed toy $lainti9s4appellants, a demand to vacate "as made efore the action forunla"ful detainer "as instituted'

complaint for unla"ful detainer is suFcient if it alleges that the "ithholding ofpossession or the refusal is unla"ful "ithout necessarily employing the terminologyof the la" (/imene vs' $atricia, Inc', 35 BCR 7!7)' In the case at ench, par' 5 ofthe Complaint alleges, thus&

5' fter a period of one (1) year living in the aforementioned house, $lainti9demanded upon defendant to vacate ut she failed and refused8

;rom the foregoing allegation, it cannot e disputed that a demand to vacate hasnot only een made ut that the same "as alleged in the complaint' 0o" theRegional Trial Court came to the uestionale conclusion that $lainti9s4appellantshad no cause of action is eyond Ls'

He concur "ith the C'

complaint suFciently alleges a cause of action for unla"ful detainer if it states thefollo"ing&

(a)Initially, the possession of the property y the defendant "as y contract "ith ory tolerance of the plainti98()@ventually, such possession ecame illegal upon notice y the plainti9 to thedefendant aout the termination of the latters right of possession8(c)Thereafter, the defendant remained in possession of the property and deprivedthe plainti9 of its en?oyment8 and


53/182

(d)Hithin one year from the ma%ing of the last demand to vacate the property onthe defendant, the plainti9 instituted the complaint for e?ectment'17J

In resolving "hether the complaint states a cause of action or not, only the factsalleged in the complaint are considered' The test is "hether the court can render avalid ?udgment on the complaint ased on the facts alleged and the prayer as%ed

for' nly ultimate facts, not legal conclusions or evidentiary facts, are considered forpurposes of applying the test'

.ased on its allegations, the complaint suFciently stated a cause of action forunla"ful detainer' ;irstly, it averred that the petitioner possessed the property ythe mere tolerance of the respondents' Becondly, the respondents demanded thatthe petitioner vacate the property, therey rendering her possession illegal' Thirdly,she remained in possession of the property despite the demand to vacate' nd,fourthly, the respondents instituted the complaint on +arch 1, 1***, "hich "as"ell "ithin a year after the demand to vacate "as made around Beptemer of 1**s petition "as grantedand the RTC "as ordered to dismiss Civil Case No' 41375'

$etitioner sought reconsideration of the assailed Decision, "hich "as denied y the

C in its Resolution dated ctoer !2, !3' 0ence, the present petition for revie"on certiorari under Rule 57 of the Rules of Court, raising as sole ground, vi&

T0@ 0NR.G@ CLRT ; $$@GB $GINGU @RR@D ND CT@D CNTRRU T@XIBTIN# GH ND /LRIB$RLD@NC@ IN RD@RIN# T0@ DIB+IBBG ; T0@ CIIGCB@ .@;R@ T0@ CLRT EL CNBID@RIN# T0T @NL@ IB $R$@RGU GID'*J

$etitioner insists that the venue provision in the Construction greement does notapply' 0e argues that his cause of action does not arise from the agreement, nor"as it for the performance of any of the oligations under the agreement' ccordingto petitioner, his action "as for additional payment due to the etraordinarydevaluation of the peso at the time8 and is ased on rticle 1!62 of the Civil Code,

not on any provision of the Construction greement' $etitioner elieves that hisaction is personal in nature such that Bection !, Rule 5 of the Rules of Court applies,and he has the option to =le the same "here he or respondent resides'

Respondent counters that petitioner>s claim, "hile anchored on rticle 1!62 of theCivil Code, emanated from the Construction greement8 hence, the restrictiveprovision on venue applies' Respondent also reiterates its argument that petitionerdoes not have any cause of action against respondent'

s a general rule, venue of personal actions is governed y Bection !, Rule 5 of theRules of Court, to "it&Bec' !' enue of personal actions' ll other actions may e commenced and tried"here the plainti9 or any of the principal plainti9s resides, or "here the defendantor any of the principal defendants resides, or in the case of a non4residentdefendant, "here he may e found, at the election of the plainti9'

The parties, ho"ever, are not precluded from agreeing in "riting on an eclusivevenue, as uali=ed y Bection 5 of the same rule' Hritten stipulations as to venuemay e restrictive in the sense that the suit may e =led only in the place agreedupon, or merely permissive in that the parties may =le their suit not only in theplace agreed upon ut also in the places =ed y la"' s in any other agreement,"hat is essential is the ascertainment of the intention of the parties respecting thematter'1J

s regards restrictive stipulations on venue, ?urisprudence instructs that it must esho"n that such stipulation is eclusive' In the asence of ualifying or restrictive"ords, such as eclusively, "aiving for this purpose any other venue, shall onlypreceding the designation of venue, to the eclusion of the other courts, or "ords ofsimilar import, the stipulation should e deemed as merely an agreement on anadditional forum, not as limiting venue to the speci=ed place'11J

In the present case, the Construction greement provides&


93/182

RTICG@ XI /LDICIG R@+@DI@Bll actions and controversies that may arise from this greement involving ut notlimited to demands for the speci=c performance of the oligations as speci=ed inthe clauses contained herein andor as resolved or interpreted y the CGI@NTpursuant to the third paragraph of rticle I hereof may e rought y the parties

efore the proper courts in Eueon City "here the main oFce of the CGI@NT islocated, the CNTRCTR herey epressly "aiving any other venue'

The venue is speci=c 4 Eueon City 4 and accompanied y the "ords theCNTRCTR herey epressly "aiving any other venue, "hich connote eclusivityof the designated venue' These terms clearly stipulate eclusively the venue "hereactions arising from the Construction greement should e =led'

$etitioner, ho"ever, contends that the case does not arise from the Constructiongreement8 hence, it may e =led in +a%ati City, "hich is his place of residence'

Contrary to petitioners contention, the allegations in his complaint induitaly sho"

that his cause of action arose from the Construction greement, vi&

1!' Defendant should e ordered to pay the ?ust and fair price for the constructionof its uilding in .aguio, considering that the foreign currency crisis that hit thecountry "as manifestly eyond the contemplation of the parties' 0ence, a re4negotiation of the contract price "ould e ?ust and reasonale under thecircumstances'13' $lainti9>s reuest for price ad?ustment is ased on rticle 1!62 of the Ne" CivilCode, "hich states&17' Clearly, the 67 increase in price for the imported components of the pro?ect"as manifestly eyond the contemplation of the parties' 0ence, plainti9s reuestfor price ad?ustment should not e considered as falling under the prohiition statedin rticle III of the Construction greement' ;ollo"ing the principle enunciated inrticle 1!62 of the Civil Code, plainti9 should e released from the oligation tocomplete the pro?ect at the original contract price, speci=cally y granting plainti9 aprice ad?ustment in the amount euivalent to the di9erence et"een the unit pricesas stated in the plans and the actual cost of the purchase'13J

$etitioners claim for price ad?ustment rests on the asic operative facts that theConstruction greement originally pegged the contract price at $


94/182

T0IRTU T0R@@ $@BB ND 251 ($


95/182

n Beptemer 3, 1***, the $hilippine .an% of Communications (hereinafterpetitionerJ) =led a complaint against Respondents @lena Gim, Ramon Calderon and

Tri4ro International Trading K +anufacturing Corporation (Tri4ro for revity)J "iththe Regional Trial Court of +anila for the collection of a de=ciency amounting to$5,15,!*2'!3 eclusive of interest' $etitionerJ alleged therein that respondentsJotained a loan from it and eecuted a continuing surety agreement dated

Novemer 16, 1**7 in favor of petitionerJ for all loans, credits, etc', that "ereetended or may e etended in the future to respondentsJ' $etitionerJ granted arene"al of said loan upon respondentsJ reuest, the most recent eing on /anuary!1, 1**< as evidenced y $romissory Note Rene"al .D4ariale No'

Ruling of the Court of ppeals

n appeal, the C ruled that respondents alleged det "as ased on the $romissoryNote, "hich had provided an eclusionary stipulation on venue to the eclusion ofall other courts'7J The parties Burety greement, though silent as to venue, "as anaccessory contract that should have een interpreted in consonance "ith the$romissory Note'6J

0ence, this $etition'

$etitioner raises the follo"ing issue for our consideration&

Hhether or not the 0onorale Court of ppeals had decided the issue of venue in a"ay not in accord "ith la" and applicale decisions of this 0onorale Court and hadtherey departed from the accepted and usual course of ?udicial proceedings, as tocall for this 0onorale Bupreme Courts po"er of supervision and appellate revie"'

The Courts Ruling

The $etition is unmeritorious'

t the outset, this Court oserves that petitioner too% lierties "ith the stipulatedfacts to suit its allegations in the present $etition' In its Complaint, petitioner an%


96/182

averred that respondents had entered into the Burety greement (B) to guaranteeeisting and future credit facilities, and that they had eecuted the $romissory Note($N) to document their loan'*J No", the an% is claiming that Tri4ro issued the $Non "hich the other respondents should e made liale as sureties'1J

This strategy is oviously intended to disconnect the B from the $N and to support

the claim of petitioner that the stipulation on venue does not apply to the B'0o"ever, as "ill e discussed elo", the cause of action to recover on the asis ofthe B is inseparale from that "hich is ased on the $N'

Rule on enue

Bection ! of Rule 5 of the Rules of Court provides that personal actions11J must ecommenced and tried (1) in the place "here the plainti9 resides, or (!) "here thedefendant resides, or (3) in case of non4resident defendants, "here they may efound, at the choice of the plainti9'1!J This rule on venue does not apply "hen thela" speci=cally provides other"ise, or "hen 44 efore the =ling of the action 44 thecontracting parties agree in "riting on the eclusive venue thereof'13J enue is not

?urisdictional and may e "aived y the parties'

stipulation as to venue does not preclude the =ling of the action in other places,unless ualifying or restrictive "ords are used in the agreement'

In the instant case, the stipulation on the eclusivity of the venue as stated in the$N is not at issue' Hhat petitioner claims is that there "as no restriction on thevenue, ecause none "as stipulated in the B on "hich petitioner had allegedlyased its suit'16J ccordingly, the action on the B may e =led in +anila,petitioners place of residence'

$etitioner adds that its Complaint =led in the trial court had t"o causes of action&the =rst "as founded on a reach of the $N8 and the second, on a violation of theB'12J Conseuently, it "as allegedly correct to ?oin the causes of action and to =lethe case in +anila, per Bection 7 of Rule ! of the Rules of Court, "hich reads&1


97/182

lthough the surety contract is secondary to the principal oligation, the suretyassumes liaility as a regular party to the underta%ing'!!J

In enforcing a surety contract, the complementary4contracts4construed4togetherdoctrine =nds application'!3J ccording to this principle, an accessory contractmust e read in its entirety and together "ith the principal agreement'!5J This

principle is used in construing contractual stipulations in order to arrive at their truemeaning8 certain stipulations cannot e segregated and then made to control'!7J

This no4segregation principle is ased on rticle 1325 of the Civil Code, "hich "euote&

rt' 1325' The various stipulations of a contract shall e interpreted together,attriuting to the doutful ones that sense "hich may result from all of them ta%en

?ointly'

The aforementioned doctrine is applicale to the present case' Incapale ofstanding y itself, the B can e enforced only in con?unction "ith the $N' The latterdocuments the det that is sought to e collected in the action against the sureties'

The factual milieu of the present case sho"s that the B "as entered into tofacilitate eisting and future loan agreements' $etitioner approved the loan coveredy the $N, partly ecause of the B that assured the payment of the principaloligation' The circumstances that related to the issuance of the $N and the B areso intert"ined that neither one could e separated from the other' It ma%es nosense to argue that the parties to the B "ere not ound y the stipulations in the$N'

Notaly, the $N "as a contract of adhesion that petitioner reuired the principaldetor to eecute as a condition of the approval of the loan' It "as made in the formand language prepared y the an%' .y inserting the provision that +a%ati City"ould e the venue for any legal action thatJ may arise out of theJ $romissoryNote,!6J petitioner also restricted the venue of actions against the sureties' Thelegal action against the sureties arose not only from the B, ut also from the $N'

Cause of ction

$etitioner correctly argues that there are t"o causes of action contained in itsComplaint' cause of action is a partys act or omission that violates the rights ofthe other'!2J nly one suit may e commenced for a single cause of action'!


98/182

oligation'31J .y the same to%en, respondents could have een ?oined asdefendants in one suit, ecause petitioners alleged right of relief arose from thesame transaction or series of transactions that had common uestions of fact'3!J

To avoid a multiplicity of suits, ?oinder of parties is encouraged y the la"'

The cause of action, ho"ever, does not a9ect the venue of the action' The vital

issue in the present case is "hether the action against the sureties is covered ythe restriction on venue stipulated in the $N' s earlier

Date post:	01-Mar-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	maye-celaine
View:	217 times
Download:	0 times

KINDS OF ACTIONS.docx

Documents