G.R. No. L-20341 - Claridades vs. Mercader

Plaintiff and Appellant: Dr. Simeon S. Claridades, who brought the action for dissolution of partnership and accounting.
Defendants and Appellees: Vicente C. Mercader and Perfecto Fernandez, with the latter also counterclaiming for damages and attorney’s fees.
Intervenors:

Guillermo Reyes – intervened seeking to recover money allegedly due for services rendered as foreman of the fishpond.
Armando H. Asuncion – intervened as the alleged assignee of defendant Mercader’s interest in the partnership and fishpond.
Alfredo J. Zulueta and Yap Leding – later permitted to intervene, asserting themselves as owners of the fishpond based on purported prior transactions.

The principal claim sought by the plaintiff was the dissolution of an alleged partnership, specifically in relation to a fishpond located in Sta. Cruz, Marinduque, which was the main asset of the partnership.
Plaintiff additionally demanded an accounting of the partnership’s operations from September 1954 onward, along with moral and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and costs.
The complaint’s relief mechanism included the sale of the fishpond assets to satisfy partnership debts with any residue to be distributed equally among the partners.

In their answer, the defendants admitted the existence of the partnership but maintained that its operations had been unproductive.
They advanced a special defense claiming:

An impending auction sale of the fishpond was imminent due to tax delinquencies.
The plaintiff had failed to contribute his due share of funds, thereby contributing to the financial difficulties resulting in the auction threat.

By institution of a counterclaim, the defendants sought damages including attorney’s fees and costs arising from the initiation of the action.

Guillermo Reyes intervened for the purpose of recovering a monetary sum alleged to be due him for his services as the fishpond’s foreman.
Armando H. Asuncion intervened claiming to be the assignee of Mercader’s interest in both the partnership and the fishpond.
Alfredo J. Zulueta and Yap Leding intervened later on, asserting that they were the actual owners of the fishpond based on their purported purchase of a half-interest from previous transactions involving Benito Regencia and Asuncion.
Despite the plaintiff’s opposition, the lower court granted permission to the Zuluetas to intervene, allowing them ten days to file pleadings safeguarding their rights.

On the plaintiff’s motion, the lower court appointed a receiver to take control of the fishpond.
The Zuluetas subsequently filed a motion to dismiss on February 12, 1962, arguing that:

On March 2, 1962, the lower court granted the motion to dismiss solely on the ground of improper venue.
A motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting the plaintiff and intervenor Reyes to file the present appeal.

The pivotal question before the appellate court was whether the case should have been instituted in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan (plaintiff’s residence) as opposed to Marinduque (location of the fishpond).
Despite the fishpond being located in Marinduque, the underlying claim was that of a personal action for the dissolution of a partnership, which, by nature, could be filed either where the plaintiff or the defendants resided.
The defendants, although residents of Marinduque, did not object to the filing venue, effectively waiving any objections to the venue being in Bulacan.

Whether the action for dissolution of partnership and accounting, though involving an asset (the fishpond) located in Marinduque, constitutes a personal action that may be properly instituted in the plaintiff’s (or defendant’s) place of residence.
Whether the intervention of parties such as Asuncion, Zulueta, and Yap Leding altered the nature of the action so as to affect the propriety of the initially laid venue.
Whether the dismissal based solely on the ground of improper venue was justified in light of the facts that: