De Jesus v. Coloso
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiff-appellant's intestate estate entered into a contract with defendant-appellee Rodrigo Coloso, granting him exclusive rights to manage a 315-hectare parcel of land (Hacienda Nolasco) in Samal, Bataan. The contract stipulated Coloso's duties, including paying real estate taxes, improving the land, introducing permanent improvements, rendering annual accountings, and delivering half of the produce. The agreement also granted Coloso a 10-year management period, extendible for another 10 years, and an option to purchase the property within the first 10 years for P60,000.00. Procedural History: Plaintiff-appellant filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Bataan (Civil Case No. 2511), alleging Coloso's failure to comply with contractual obligations such as paying taxes and making improvements. Plaintiff prayed for rescission of the contract, return of possession of the land, and damages amounting to P50,000.00, plus P10,000.00 for attorney's fees. The Appeal: Defendant-appellee moved to dismiss the action on two grounds: (a) improper venue, arguing the case was personal and not real, and (b) pendency of another action (Civil Case No. 34243 in the Court of First Instance of Manila), where Coloso was the plaintiff and sought enforcement of the agreement and damages for alleged interference by the plaintiff-appellant in his sale negotiations. The Court of First Instance of Bataan granted the motion to dismiss. Plaintiff-appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of First Instance of Bataan properly dismissed the action on the ground of improper venue. Whether the Court of First Instance of Bataan properly dismissed the action on the ground of pendency of another action.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the order of dismissal issued by the Court of First Instance of Bataan. The case was ordered remanded to the said court for further proceedings. Costs were against the defendant-appellee.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the venue was properly laid in the Court of First Instance of Bataan. The Court clarified that while the complaint alleged breach of contract and prayed for rescission, the ultimate purpose of the action was to recover possession of the real property (Hacienda Nolasco). As an action for the recovery of possession of real property, it is classified as a real action. Pursuant to Section 3 of Rule 5 of the Rules of Court, real actions must be filed in the court where the property subject thereof is situated. Therefore, the filing of the case in Bataan, where the land is located, was proper. On Issue 2: The Supreme Court ruled that the pendency of another action (Civil Case No. 34243 in Manila) did not warrant the dismissal of the case in Bataan. The Court distinguished the two cases based on their subject matter and reliefs sought. The action in Bataan was for the recovery of possession of the land due to alleged breach of contract by the defendant-appellee. In contrast, the action in Manila, filed by Coloso, sought the enforcement of the agreement and recovery of damages allegedly suffered due to the plaintiff-appellant's interference with his sale negotiations. Although the validity of the contract might be an issue in both cases, the primary objectives and the specific reliefs prayed for were substantially different. Citing Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation v. Aldecoa, the Court held that an action to annul a contract is not a bar to another action to foreclose the same contract, and similarly, an action for damages does not bar an action for recovery of possession. Thus, the two actions did not involve the same subject matter and issues to the extent that one would be a bar to the other.
Main Doctrine
The venue for an action concerning real property is determined by the nature of the action and its ultimate purpose. If the primary objective is to recover possession of real property, it is considered a real action and must be filed in the court where the property is located. The existence of another pending action between the same parties will only warrant dismissal if it involves the same subject matter and raises identical issues, seeking substantially the same relief.