Facts:

The case revolves around Dr. Antonio A. Lizares, Inc. (Petitioner) and Flaviano Cacnio (Respondent). On June 14, 1960, Cacnio filed Civil Case No. Q-5197 against the Petitioner in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Quezon City Branch. In his complaint, Cacnio claimed that he purchased a lot in Bacolod City from Dr. Antonio A. Lizares, Inc. on an installment basis. The purchase agreement involved a down payment of P1,206 and a remaining balance of P10,858 to be paid in ten yearly installments of P1,085.80 each, with an interest rate of 6% per annum.

On March 25, 1960, Cacnio received a demand letter from the Petitioner for payment of P7,324.69, indicating arrears in his installment payments up to April 20, 1960, plus "regular and overdue" interest and land taxes amounting to 70% of the 1960 taxes. Cacnio contended that the total amount due for arrears was only P5,824.69 since he had previously made a payment of P1,500 in 1958. In response to the demand, Cacnio sent a

...

Facts:

Transaction and Contractual Background

• On April 20, 1955, Flaviano Cacnio purchased, on an installment basis, Lot 4, Block I of the Sinkang Subdivision in Bacolod City from Dr. Antonio A. Lizares, Inc.
• The contract of sale stipulated a down payment of P1,206, with a remaining balance of P10,858 to be paid in ten (10) yearly installments of P1,085.80 each, together with interest at an annual rate of 6%.

Payment Demand and Tender

• On March 25, 1960, petitioner sent a letter demanding a payment of P7,324.69, representing arrears in installment payments through April 20, 1960.
• The demand also included additional charges for “regular and overdue” interest and “land taxes up to 70% of 1960.”
• Cacnio contended that his arrears actually amounted to only P5,824.69, as he had previously paid P1,500 “sometime in 1958.”
• In response, on May 26, 1960, Cacnio tendered a check for P5,824.69, drafted by one Antonio Bernardo, intended as payment for the arrears.
• The petitioner purportedly “returned” the check, refusing the tender without legal or equitable grounds, an act which Cacnio alleged deprived him of his rightful avenue to safeguard his interests in the property.

Legal Proceedings and Injunctive Relief

• Subsequent to the returned check, Cacnio initiated Civil Case No. Q-5197 in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Quezon City Branch.
• Cacnio sought compensatory damages (P5,000) and attorney’s fees (P2,000) on the ground that he was forced to engage counsel due to petitioner’s alleged wrongful act.
• A writ of preliminary injunction was issued on June 16, 1960, to enjoin the petitioner and its agents from repossessing the purchased lot.

Venue Issue and Motion to Dismiss

• On July 5, 1960, petitioner moved to dismiss Cacnio’s complaint on the basis that “venue is improperly laid” since the real property at issue is located in Bacolod City, a location crucial to the contract.
• The Court of First Instance of Rizal, Quezon City Branch, denied the motion on July 9, 1960, holding that the action was in personam and could be filed in the court of the plaintiff’s domicile, per section 1 of Rule 5.

Petition for Writ of Prohibition

• Dissatisfied with the lower court’s decision, petitioner filed a petition (Civil Case CA-G.R. No. 28013-R) with the Court of Appeals, seeking a writ of prohibition to restrain Judge Hermogenes Caluag of the Court of First Instance from continuing with the proceedings in Civil Case No. Q-5197.
• On October 27, 1960, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision dismissing petitioner’s petition for a writ of prohibition.

Core Controversy

• The primary issue centers on whether the main case falls within Section 3 of Rule 5 of the Rules of Court, which mandates that actions affecting the title to, or recovery of possession of, real property must be commenced in the province where the property is located.
• Both the Court of Appeals and the Court of First Instance held that the case was in personam and did not fall under the strict purview of Section 3.

Issue:

Venue Determination

• Whether the action initiated by Cacnio, although appearing as an in personam claim for the tender of arrears, is essentially an action affecting title and/or possession of real property, and thus should strictly follow the venue rules prescribed in Section 3 of Rule 5.
• Whether the court where the action was originally filed (Rizal, Quezon City Branch) was the proper venue despite the property being located in Bacolod City.

Legal Nature of the Relief Sought

• Whether the immediate remedy sought—compelling petitioner to accept the check tender—is merely a preliminary step towards establishing Cacnio’s claim to the property.
• How the character of the relief sought influences the determination of whether the action falls within the ambit of property-related cases.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)