G.R. No. 129184 - Emergency Loan Pawnshop, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

Petitioner Emergency Loan Pawnshop Incorporated (ELPI) purchased a parcel of land from respondent Traders Royal Bank (TRB) on January 18, 1996, for ₱500,000.
TRB misrepresented the property as a vacant residential lot valued between ₱600 and ₱800 per square meter with a usable land area of 1,143.75 square meters, when in fact only 140 square meters were deemed usable and the majority of the lot constituted a public road.

After investing time and resources to fully ascertain the true condition of the property, ELPI demanded rescission and cancellation of the sale due to the misrepresentations.
TRB refused ELPI’s demand, prompting ELPI to file a complaint for annulment of sale and damages against TRB on April 16, 1996, with the Regional Trial Court, Davao (Branch 17).

On August 27, 1996, TRB filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint on the ground of improper venue.
The trial court denied TRB’s motion to dismiss on September 18, 1996.
TRB then filed a motion for reconsideration on October 21, 1996, which was subsequently denied on November 14, 1996.

On January 15, 1997, TRB elevated the case by filing a petition for certiorari and prohibition (coupled with a request for a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order), contending that the trial court committed a grave abuse of discretion by denying its motion to dismiss.
On March 11, 1997, the Court of Appeals annulled the trial court’s orders dated September 18 and November 14, 1996, and dismissed the original complaint on the ground of improper venue.

Petitioners argued that the determination of improper venue is a pure question of law, asserting that the Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction to grant certiorari on the issue.
They contended that the denial of a motion to dismiss is interlocutory in nature, thus not directly appealable or reviewable by a special civil action for certiorari.

Whether an appeal may be taken from a decision of the Regional Trial Court denying a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of improper venue.
Whether a petition for certiorari and prohibition is the proper remedy for challenging the trial court’s denial of the motion to dismiss due to jurisdictional defect in venue.
Whether the determination of improper venue, being a question of law, places the issue beyond the appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals, given that interlocutory orders are generally not appealable.