Case Digest (G.R. No. L-14143)
Facts:
Domingo De Jesus, in His Capacity as Administrator of the Intestate Estate of Florentina M. Vda. de Jesus v. Rodrigo Coloso, G.R. No. L-14821. January 28, 1961, the Supreme Court En Banc, Labrador, J., writing for the Court.
Plaintiff-appellant Domingo De Jesus, as administrator of the estate of the deceased Florentina M. Vda. de Jesus, filed Civil Case No. 2511 in the Court of First Instance of Bataan against defendant-appellee Rodrigo Coloso. The complaint alleges that on February 12, 1955, the deceased and Coloso executed a contract granting Coloso the exclusive management of a 315-hectare parcel known as Hacienda Nolasco in Samal, Bataan, with duties to pay taxes, improve irrigation, introduce permanent improvements (plant fruit trees), clear and cultivate, render annual accounts, and deliver one-half of produce; the agreement also gave Coloso a management term of ten years (renewable) and an option to purchase within the first ten years for P60,000.
Plaintiff alleged breaches by Coloso (failure to pay taxes, failure to introduce permanent improvements, etc.), prayed for rescission of the contract, recovery of possession of the Hacienda Nolasco, actual damages of P50,000, and P10,000 for attorney’s fees and expenses. Coloso moved to dismiss the Bataan action on two grounds: improper venue and that the complaint was a compulsory counterclaim to an action he had earlier filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila (Civil Case No. 34243, filed November 29, 1957), in which Coloso sought enforcement of the same agreement and claimed plaintiff obstructed negotiations to sell Coloso’s interest.
The Court of First Instance of Bataan (Hon. Ambrosio T. Dollete, presiding) dismissed the Bataan complaint on the dual grounds urged by Coloso. Plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court, which reviewed the dismissal. The Supreme Cou...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is the venue of the action properly laid in the Court of First Instance of Bataan under Section 3, Rule 5 of the Rules of Court (i.e., is this a real action for recovery of possession)?
- Does the pendency of Civil Case No. 34243 in the Court of First Instance of Manila bar or require dismissal...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)