G.R. No. 93073 - Republic Planters Bank vs. Court of Appeals

Since March 21, 1978, petitioner Remedios Antonino (Antonino) had been leasing a residential property in Makati City owned by respondent Tan Tian Su (Su).
The lease contract granted Antonino the right of first refusal should Su decide to sell the property.

On July 7, 2004, Antonino and Su executed an Undertaking Agreement where Su agreed to sell the property to Antonino for P39,500,000.00.
Sale did not proceed due to a disagreement on who would pay the capital gains tax.

On July 9, 2004, Antonino filed a complaint with the RTC of Makati City for reimbursement of repair costs and damages, docketed as Civil Case No. 04-802.
On the same day, she filed an amended complaint seeking to enforce the Undertaking Agreement and compel Su to sell the property.

In an Order dated December 8, 2004, the RTC dismissed Antonino’s complaint, citing:

Improper venue — the action was personal, requiring filing where either party resides (Antonino in Muntinlupa, Su in Manila), and Makati City was not proper.
Non-payment of appropriate docket fees — no proper fees were filed for the amended complaint seeking specific performance.

The RTC referred to the case as one for specific performance with damages, a personal action under Section 2, Rule 5 of the Rules of Court.
The court likewise denied jurisdiction due to unpaid docket fees, referencing the Supreme Court ruling in Manchester Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals.

On December 23, 2004, Su filed an Omnibus Motion for cancellation of the notice of lis pendens and for summary judgment on counterclaims.
Antonino filed a Motion for Reconsideration on January 3, 2005, arguing that the complaint was a real action and that the property's location should govern venue; she also submitted a residency certification.
RTC denied this motion on January 6, 2005, citing non-compliance with motion rules.
Antonino filed a second Motion for Reconsideration on January 21, 2005, claiming proper notice was given and pleading for liberal interpretation.
RTC denied both Su’s Omnibus Motion and Antonino’s second motion in a Joint Resolution dated February 24, 2005, holding the dismissal was on procedural grounds (improper venue and docket fees) leaving the cause of action unresolved for refiling in the proper court; it also declined cancellation of lis pendens.
The RTC reaffirmed that Antonino’s complaint was a personal action and the proper venue was Manila or Muntinlupa.

On April 1, 2005, Antonino filed a petition for annulment of judgment with the Court of Appeals (CA), seeking nullification of the RTC’s dismissal and denial orders.
Antonino argued RTC committed grave abuse of discretion by ruling her action as personal, dismissing for improper venue, and denying her the chance to pay the proper docket fees.
The CA, in its Decision dated May 26, 2008, dismissed the petition, recognizing Antonino’s erroneous choice of remedy.
The CA reasoned that the complaint was a personal action properly filed in the parties’ places of residence and that the RTC had jurisdiction, thus the dismissal was valid.
The CA held that annulment of judgment cannot be used as a substitute for appeal and that lack of jurisdiction as ground for annulment does not cover mere grave abuse of discretion.
Antonino’s subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA in a Resolution dated December 5, 2008.

Whether Antonino’s use of a petition for annulment of judgment was proper to assail the final and executory orders of the RTC dismissing her complaint.