Spouses Decena-vs-Piquero

On February 9, 2000, trial court denied the motion for lack of merit.
When
SPOUSES DANILO and CRISTINA DECENA, petitioners, vs. SPOUSES the case was re-raffled to Branch 10 of the RTC of Malolos, respondents filed
PEDRO and VALERIA PIQUERO, respondents. MR which the court granted and then ordered the dismissal of the
complaint. It ruled that the principal action of the petitioners was a real action
and should have been filed in the RTC of Parañaque City where the property
FACTS: subject matter of the complaint was located.
Petitioners Sps. Danilo and Cristina Decena were the owners of a parcel Hence, the present recourse.
of land, with a house constructed thereon, located in Parañaque.
ISSUE: W/N venue was properly laid by petitioners in the RTC of Malolos.
On September 7, 1997, petitioners and the respondents Sps. Pedro and
Valeria Piquero, executed a MOA in which petitioners sold the property to the HELD: NO. Section 5, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court invoked by the petitioners
respondents for P940,250 payable in six (6) installments via postdated does not apply. Under the said Rule, a party may, in one pleading, assert, in
checks. the alternative or otherwise, as many causes of action as he may have against
an opposing party subject to the conditions therein enumerated, one of which
It appears in the MOA that petitioners obliged themselves to transfer the is Section 5(c) which reads: Joinder of causes of action. --(c) Where the
property to the respondents upon the execution of the MOA with the condition causes of action are between the same parties but pertain to different venues
that if two of the postdated checks would be dishonored by the drawee bank, or jurisdiction, the joinder may be allowed in the Regional Trial Court provided
the respondents would be obliged to reconvey the property to the petitioners. one of the causes of action falls within the jurisdiction of said court and the
venue lies therein; …
On May 17, 1999, the petitioners, then residents of Malolos, Bulacan, filed
a Complaint against the respondents with the RTC of Malolos for the The petitioners, as plaintiffs in the court a quo, had only one cause of
annulment of the sale/MOA, recovery of possession and damages alleging action against the respondents, namely, the breach of the MOA upon the
that they did not transfer the property to and in the names of the respondents latter’s refusal to pay the first two installments in payment of the property as
as vendees because the first two checks drawn and issued by them in payment
for the purchase price of the property were dishonored by the drawee bank, agreed upon, and turn over to the petitioners the possession of the real
and were not replaced with cash despite demands. They declared in their property, as well as the house constructed thereon occupied by the
complaint that the property subject of the complaint valued at P6, 900,000. respondents. The claim for damages for reasonable compensation for the
respondents’ use and occupation of the property, in the interim, as well as
Respondents filed a MD on the ground of improper venue and lack of
moral and exemplary damages suffered by the petitioners on account of the
jurisdiction over the property subject matter of the action. Respondents
averred that the principal action of the petitioners for the rescission of the MOA, breach of contract of the respondents are merely incidental to the main cause
and the recovery of the possession of the property is a real action and not a of action, and are not independent or separate causes of action. The action of
personal one; hence, it should have been brought in the RTC of Parañaque the petitioners for the rescission of the MOA on account of the respondents’
City, where the property subject matter of the action was located, and not in breach thereof and the latter’s failure to return the premises subject of the
the RTC of Malolos, Bulacan, where the petitioners resided. complaint to the petitioners, and the respondents’ eviction therefrom is a real
In opposition, the petitioners insisted that their action for damages and action. As such, the action should have been filed in the proper court where
attorney’s fees is a personal action and not a real action; hence, it may be filed the property is located, namely, in Parañaque City, conformably with Section
in the RTC of Bulacan where they reside. They averred that while their second 1, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court. Since the petitioners, who were residents of
cause of action for the recovery of the possession of the property is a real Malolos, Bulacan, filed their complaint in the said RTC, venue was improperly
action, the same may, nevertheless, be joined with the rest of their causes of laid; hence, the trial court acted conformably with Section 1(c), Rule 16 of the
action for damages, conformably with Section 5(c), Rule 2 of the Rules of
Court. Rules of Court when it ordered the dismissal of the complaint.
By way of reply, the respondents averred that Section 5(c), Rule 2 of the
Rules of Court applies only when one or more of multiple causes of action falls
within the exclusive jurisdiction of the first level courts, and the other or others
are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC, and the venue lies therein.

Spouses Decena-vs-Piquero

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Spouses Decena-vs-Piquero

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Spouses Decena-vs-Piquero

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

On February 9, 2000, trial court denied the motion for lack of merit.

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.