Ruiz v. Tuason
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Manuel B. Ruiz filed an action against J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. and the sheriff of Quezon City seeking to enjoin the execution of a writ of execution in Civil Case No. Q-3492 against Sixto M. Cacho, which was being enforced against Ruiz by ejectment from a property and demolition of his house. Ruiz also prayed that J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. be ordered to execute a final deed of sale in his favor for a 420 sq. m. parcel of land at P7.00 per sq. m., considering his P855.00 payment as partial. The property in question was originally owned by Florencio Deudor, who sold a portion to Jose Dinglasan. Dinglasan later sold his rights to spouses Sixto M. Cacho and Julita de Jesus, who in turn sold their rights to Ruiz. Ruiz took possession as owner. J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. filed an action against Sixto M. Cacho, obtained a judgment by default, and secured a writ of execution. Procedural History: Florencio Deudor filed a motion to dismiss Ruiz's complaint on grounds of improper venue, lack of cause of action, and prescription. J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. filed a motion for a bill of particulars. The court a quo dismissed the case on March 11, 1961, finding the venue improperly laid because the action affected real property situated in Quezon City. Ruiz's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Ruiz appealed the dismissal order, contending that the action was transitory as it was for specific performance and to compel the execution of a deed of sale, not an action to recover real property.
Issue(s)
Whether the action for specific performance to compel the execution of a deed of sale for a parcel of land, which also seeks an injunction against execution proceedings, is a transitory or local action. Whether the venue was properly laid in the Court of First Instance of Manila.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the order of dismissal, holding that the venue was improperly laid. The action, despite being labeled as specific performance, fundamentally involves title to and recovery of possession of real property situated in Quezon City, thus requiring it to be filed in the province where the property lies.
Ratio Decidendi
On the venue of the action: The Court held that the appellant's contention that the action is transitory because it is for specific performance has no merit. Although the complaint is entitled as one for specific performance, the primary objective and nature of the action is to recover the parcel of land itself. This is evident from the prayer for the issuance of a deed of sale and a transfer certificate of title in his favor, which necessitates a finding of ownership. Therefore, the action must be commenced in the province where the property is situated, pursuant to Section 3, Rule 5 of the Rules of Court, which mandates that actions affecting title to or recovery of possession of real property shall be tried in the province where the property or any part thereof lies. The Court cited McFarland v. Martin, et al. and Kopke v. Carlson, et al. to support the principle that suits for specific performance involving real property are triable where the land is situated. On the ancillary prayer for injunction: The Court further noted that the prayer for an injunction against the execution of a writ of execution and demolition of houses on the property in Quezon City also necessarily involves a determination of ownership and possession of said property. This determination is a preliminary step to assessing the validity of the writ of execution. Consequently, this claim also requires the action to be brought in the place where the land is situated. The Court reiterated the principle that the primary object of a suit, such as injunction, determines the question of venue. If the suit necessarily involves a determination of an interest in land, it must be brought where the land lies, and the fact that an injunction is sought as ancillary relief does not make the case transitory or personal, citing 92 C.J.S., pp. 748-749.
Main Doctrine
An action for specific performance to compel the execution of a deed of sale for a parcel of land, which necessarily involves a determination of ownership and title to said property, must be filed in the province where the property is situated, as it is an action affecting title to or recovery of possession of real property, and not a transitory personal action.