G.R. No. 175796 - BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc. vs. Spouses Yujuico

On August 22, 1996, the City of Manila filed an expropriation complaint against Spouses Benedictto and Teresita Yujuico for five parcels in Tondo, Manila. Two parcels (TCT Nos. 261331 and 261332) were mortgaged to Citytrust Banking Corporation (petitioner’s predecessor) under a First Real Estate Mortgage Contract.
On June 30, 2000, the Manila RTC rendered judgment declaring the parcels expropriated; judgment became final January 28, 2001. The petitioner’s Motion to Intervene in Execution was denied as filed out of time.

Petitioner extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage, and the sheriff’s auction on January 28, 2003 awarded the two lots to petitioner for ₱10,000,000.00.
Claiming a deficiency of ₱18,522,155.42, petitioner filed Civil Case No. 03-450 in Makati RTC to recover the shortfall. Respondents moved to dismiss on grounds of res judicata, no cause of action, and waiver/abandonment.

October 17, 2003: RTC denied respondents’ motion to dismiss, ruling no res judicata or abandonment and finding sufficient cause of action.
November 4, 2003: Respondents filed a motion for reconsideration reiterating earlier grounds; petitioner opposed.
In their reply, respondents raised improper venue for the first time.
February 1, 2005: RTC denied reconsideration and held that improper venue was waived for not having been timely raised in the motion to dismiss.

Respondents petitioned the CA for certiorari, raising four issues: res judicata, cause of action, waiver/extinguishment, and improper venue.
March 31, 2006: CA granted certiorari solely on venue, holding that a deficiency suit is a “mortgage action” (real action) and must be filed in the RTC where the property is located (Manila).
December 7, 2006: CA denied motions for reconsideration.
Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court, challenging (a) CA’s denial of petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and (b) CA’s acceptance of the belated venue ground.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying the petitioner’s partial motion for reconsideration on venue, thereby dismissing the complaint for sum of money contrary to law.
Whether the Court of Appeals acted contrary to law and jurisprudence by entertaining the improper venue objection raised only in the motion for reconsideration.