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