Decena v. Piquero
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners, Spouses Danilo and Cristina Decena, were the owners of a parcel of land with a house thereon in Parañaque City. On September 7, 1997, they executed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) selling the property to respondents, Spouses Pedro and Valeria Piquero, for ₱940,250.00, payable in six installments via postdated checks. Respondents took possession of the property. A condition in the MOA stipulated that if two postdated checks were dishonored, respondents would reconvey the property to petitioners. Procedural History: On May 17, 1999, petitioners filed a Complaint with the RTC of Malolos, Bulacan, for annulment of the MOA, recovery of possession, and damages. They alleged that the first two checks were dishonored and not replaced with cash despite demands. Respondents moved to dismiss, arguing improper venue and lack of jurisdiction, as the property was in Parañaque City, making the action a real action that should have been filed there. The RTC initially denied the motion but later granted a motion for reconsideration, dismissing the complaint on the ground of improper venue. The Petition: Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court, arguing that their action for damages and attorney's fees was personal and could be filed in Bulacan, and that under Section 5(c), Rule 2 of the Rules of Court, a real action could be joined with a personal action if one of the causes of action falls within the jurisdiction and venue of the RTC.
Issue(s)
Whether venue was properly laid in the RTC of Malolos, Bulacan, considering the nature of the action and the location of the property. Whether Section 5(c), Rule 2 of the Rules of Court is applicable, and whether the claims for damages constitute separate causes of action affecting venue.
Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of merit. Venue was improperly laid in the RTC of Malolos, Bulacan. The trial court acted correctly in dismissing the complaint.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of venue: The Supreme Court held that the action for rescission of the MOA and recovery of possession is a real action that must be commenced where the property is situated (Parañaque City). The primary right violated was the petitioners' right to have the MOA fulfilled or rescinded, and the wrong was the respondents' breach and failure to vacate. Filing in RTC Malolos, Bulacan, where the petitioners resided but where the property was not located, was improper. The trial court correctly dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. On the issue of the applicability of Section 5(c), Rule 2: The Supreme Court held that Section 5(c), Rule 2 does not apply because the petitioners had only one cause of action: breach of the MOA. The claims for damages were merely incidental to this main cause of action and not independent or separate causes of action. A cause of action is determined by the facts alleged in the complaint, not by the reliefs prayed for. It is the substance, not the form, that controls.
Main Doctrine
A real action, such as one for the recovery of possession of real property, must be filed in the court of the place where the property is located. Claims for damages, even if joined, do not change the nature of the principal action if the primary right sought to be enforced is related to the real property.