Latorre v. Latorre
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Generosa Almeda Latorre filed a Complaint for Collection and Declaration of Nullity of Deed of Absolute Sale with application for Injunction against her son, respondent Luis Esteban Latorre, and Ifzal Ali. Petitioner alleged that respondent, as lessor, entered into a lease contract for a property co-owned by petitioner and respondent, but falsely declared himself as the sole owner. Petitioner claimed that she and respondent had previously donated the property to a Foundation, and later executed Deeds of Revocation and Reconveyance, though these were not registered. Petitioner further alleged that respondent caused the annotation of an adverse claim on the property's title based on a falsified Deed of Absolute Sale, purportedly conveying her share to respondent for ₱21 Million, which she denied receiving. Procedural History: Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing improper venue as the case was a real action concerning property in Makati City, not Muntinlupa City where it was filed. Ifzal Ali also moved to dismiss, claiming immunity as an ADB officer. The RTC issued a TRO, enjoining rental payments between Ifzal and respondent, and ordering them to pay petitioner her share. Subsequently, the RTC denied respondent's motion to dismiss, stating the nature of the action is determined after trial. After trial, the RTC dismissed the case for want of jurisdiction, ruling it was a real action that should have been filed in Makati City. The RTC denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing the RTC's dismissal, arguing the RTC erred in treating venue as jurisdiction and in classifying the complaint as a real action.
Issue(s)
Whether the RTC erred in dismissing the case for want of jurisdiction based on improper venue and whether the RTC erred in treating the petitioner's complaint as a real action. Whether the RTC committed a procedural blunder by denying the motion to dismiss on the ground of improper venue, insisting on trial, only to dismiss the case later for lack of jurisdiction; and whether the respondent committed procedural lapses. Whether the petitioner correctly availed of a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition. It found that the RTC correctly dismissed the case, albeit for want of jurisdiction when it should have been for improper venue. The Court also found that the petitioner's direct resort to the Supreme Court was improper.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of venue and the nature of the action: The Court reiterated that the nature of an action is determined by the allegations in the complaint, not its title. The primary objective of the petitioner's complaint was the nullification of the Deed of Absolute Sale based on her claim of co-ownership and the assertion that she did not execute the deed. These allegations clearly indicate a real action involving the recovery of an interest in real property. Rule 4 of the Rules of Civil Procedure mandates that real actions shall be commenced and tried in the proper court that has territorial jurisdiction over the area where the real property is situated. Since the subject property is located in Makati City, the RTC of Muntinlupa City was indeed without jurisdiction to hear the case. On the RTC's procedural blunder and the respondent's procedural lapses: The Court noted that the RTC committed a procedural blunder by denying the motion to dismiss on the ground of improper venue, insisting on trial, only to dismiss the case later for lack of jurisdiction. Despite this, the Court found that the ultimate outcome of dismissing the case was correct due to the improper venue. The Court acknowledged that respondent could have filed a petition for certiorari upon denial of his motion to dismiss, but found that he did not waive his objections to the improper venue, as evidenced by his continued assertion of this ground in his Answer Ad Cautelam and Motion for Reconsideration. On the petitioner's direct resort to the Supreme Court: The Court clarified the modes of appeal. A Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 is exclusively for questions of law, filed directly with the Supreme Court. However, the petitioner's claim that the RTC erred in treating venue as jurisdiction and in classifying the action as real required an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented. This falls under questions of fact or mixed questions of law and fact, which should have been elevated to the Court of Appeals via an ordinary appeal under Rule 41. Direct resort to the Supreme Court was therefore improper, violating the doctrine of hierarchy of courts.
Main Doctrine
The nature of an action is determined by the allegations in the complaint, and the venue for real actions is the court where the property is situated. A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is only for questions of law, and direct resort to the Supreme Court from the RTC on issues requiring examination of evidence is improper.