Torres v. Tuason
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiff Dominga Torres purchased a 690 square meter portion of land from Eustaquio Alquiros on October 20, 1951, for P2,760.00. This land was part of a larger parcel originally owned by Telesforo Deudor. Alquiros had inherited the land from his mother, Juliana @ Juana de la Cruz, who had purchased it from Tomas Deudor, successor of Telesforo Deudor. In 1950, successors of Tomas Deudor filed actions against J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. to quiet title to the 50 quiñones land. Plaintiff attempted to intervene but was denied. On March 16, 1953, the Deudors, including Alquiros, entered into a compromise agreement with J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc., ceding their rights to the property in litigation for P1,201,063.00. The compromise stipulated that buyers listed in Annex "B" would sign new contracts with Tuason & Co. at current prices, with amounts paid to the Deudors credited. Plaintiff's name appeared in Annex "C" of the compromise. In Evangelista vs. Deudor, this Court ruled that a "contractual relation" existed between J.M. Tuason & Co. and purchasers from the Deudors, including the plaintiff. In May 1953, plaintiff demanded a new contract from J.M. Tuason & Co. at P7.00 per square meter, but the company failed to comply. Plaintiff expressed willingness to pay the current price or a court-fixed reasonable price. Procedural History: Plaintiff filed a complaint for specific performance against J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. and Eustaquio Alquiros in the Court of First Instance of Manila (Civil Case No. 48909). Defendant J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. filed a motion to dismiss based on improper venue. The Court of First Instance of Manila granted the motion and dismissed the complaint on January 20, 1962. The Petition: Plaintiff appealed directly to the Supreme Court, arguing that her action for specific performance was personal and transitory, thus not subject to the venue rules for real property.
Issue(s)
Whether the action for specific performance, seeking the execution of a deed of sale and transfer certificate of title for a parcel of land, is a personal action triable in any venue, or an action affecting title to or recovery of possession of real property, requiring trial in the location of the property. Whether the Court of First Instance of Manila committed an error in dismissing the complaint on the ground of improper venue.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the order of dismissal issued by the Court of First Instance of Manila, holding that the action, despite being denominated as specific performance, is fundamentally an action affecting title to or recovery of possession of real property and must be filed in the province where the property is situated.
Ratio Decidendi
On the nature of the action and venue: The Court held that although the complaint was entitled as one for specific performance, its primary objective and nature were to recover the parcel of land itself. The request for the execution of a deed of sale and a transfer certificate of title necessitates a finding of ownership over the land. Therefore, the action falls under the purview of 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 commenced and tried in the province where the property or any part thereof lies. The Court cited its previous ruling in Manuel B. Ruiz vs. J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc., et al., which established that a similar action for specific performance concerning land in Quezon City was an action affecting title to real property. The Court further supported this by referencing foreign jurisprudence where suits for the ascertainment of amounts due on contracts and for vendors' execution of deeds upon payment were held to be suits for specific performance triable where the land was situated. On the dismissal by the Court of First Instance of Manila: The Court found no error in the dismissal of the complaint by the Court of First Instance of Manila. The trial court correctly determined that the action concerned title to real property located in Quezon City, not Manila. Consequently, the venue was improperly laid in Manila, justifying the dismissal.
Main Doctrine
An action seeking the execution of a deed of sale and transfer certificate of title for a parcel of land, even if denominated as specific performance, is an action affecting title to or recovery of possession of real property and must be commenced and tried in the province where the property or any part thereof lies.