Gavieres v. Sanchez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiff Aurelio G. Gavieres alleged that in 1931, he was the registered owner of 1/3 of lot No. 2386, covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 12463. He sold his share to Emilio Sanchez for P10,000, payable in installments. Sanchez took possession but only paid P2,470. In the same year, Sanchez sold the property to Lorenzo T. Oña with right to repurchase, which Oña later consolidated. Oña then sold the property to Hacarin Dairy Farm Corporation, which subsequently mortgaged it to the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation (RFC). Gavieres filed a complaint praying to be declared the owner, that the sales and mortgage be declared null and void, and for damages. Procedural History: Defendants Sanchez, Oña, Hacarin Dairy Farm Corporation, and RFC filed motions to dismiss on grounds of lack of cause of action, prescription, and improper venue. The Court of First Instance of Rizal, presided over by Judge Gatmaitan, dismissed the complaint, finding the venue improperly laid and the action barred by prescription. The Petition: Plaintiff Gavieres appealed the dismissal order to the Court of Appeals, which indorsed the case to the Supreme Court as only questions of law were involved.
Issue(s)
Whether the venue of the action was properly laid in the Court of First Instance of Rizal considering the property is located in Bulacan. Whether the action for recovery of the property and/or rescission of the contract had already prescribed by the time the complaint was filed in 1950.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the order of dismissal issued by the Court of First Instance of Rizal. The Court held that venue was improperly laid, as an action affecting title to or recovery of possession of real property must be commenced and tried in the province where the property lies. The Court also found the action to be barred by prescription, as more than eighteen years had elapsed from the accrual of the cause of action to the filing of the complaint.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court ruled that venue was improperly laid because the action was fundamentally a real action. Under Section 3, Rule 5 of the Rules of Court, actions affecting title to or recovery of possession of real property must be commenced and tried in the province where the property lies. The Court held that an action for the annulment or rescission of the sale of property does not operate to efface the fundamental objective of the action, which is the recovery of said real property. Since the land is located in the Province of Bulacan, the action should have been brought there rather than in the Province of Rizal. Consequently, the dismissal was justified under Rule 8, Section 1(b), as the defendants moved for dismissal based on improper venue. On Issue 2: The Court found that the action had clearly prescribed. The cause of action accrued in April 1931, which was the deadline for the balance of the purchase price to be paid by Sanchez. Because the complaint was not filed until December 23, 1950, more than eighteen (18) years had passed since the accrual of the cause of action. The Court determined that whether the action is characterized as one to recover a sum of money or to recover real property, the prescriptive period had already lapsed. Under Rule 8, Section 1(e), prescription is a ground that may be properly raised and granted in a motion to dismiss when it is apparent from the pleadings.
Main Doctrine
An action affecting title to or recovery of possession of real property must be commenced and tried in the province where said property lies. An action for annulment or rescission of the sale of property does not efface the fundamental nature of the action as one to recover said real property. Venue may be raised in a motion to dismiss.