Title
Hi-Yield Realty, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 168863
Decision Date
Jun 23, 2009
A derivative suit filed in Makati RTC over annulment of mortgage and foreclosure sale; venue upheld as proper, no grave abuse of discretion found.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 142420)

Facts:

  • Parties and Nature of Case
    • Petitioner: Hi-Yield Realty, Incorporated (Hi-Yield).
    • Respondents: Honorio Torres & Sons, Inc. (HTSI), Roberto H. Torres, and Hon. Cesar O. Untalan in his capacity as Presiding Judge of RTC-Makati, Branch 142.
    • Case involves a Petition for Annulment of Real Estate Mortgage and Foreclosure Sale over two parcels of land located in Marikina and Quezon City.
    • Suit was filed by Roberto H. Torres on behalf of HTSI against Leonora, Ma. Theresa, Glenn, Stephanie Torres, Register of Deeds of Marikina and Quezon City, and petitioner Hi-Yield.
  • Procedural History and Motions
    • Petition docketed as Civil Case No. 03-892, Branch 148, RTC Makati.
    • Petitioner moved to dismiss for improper venue and insufficient docket fees; RTC denied motion via Order dated January 22, 2004.
    • Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was also denied on April 27, 2004.
    • Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals (CA).
    • CA dismissed petitioner’s petition via Decision dated March 10, 2005, and denied reconsideration through Resolution dated May 26, 2005.
  • Nature of the Suit as Held by Trial Court and CA
    • Both RTC and CA determined the action was essentially a derivative suit, although styled as Petition for Annulment of Real Estate Mortgage and Foreclosure Sale.
    • The annulment of mortgage and foreclosure is incidental to the derivative suit.
  • Petitioner’s Contentions in the Supreme Court
    • Venue was improperly laid before the RTC of Makati since the properties are located in Marikina and Quezon City.
    • Complaint violated rules on venue due to improper party joinder; petitioner wrongfully impleaded as a non-stockholder defendant.
    • The main thrust of the case is the recovery of the lands, not a derivative suit.
    • Alleged grave abuse of discretion by the CA in not dismissing the case.
  • Respondents’ Position
    • Case is primarily a derivative suit to address alleged unauthorized acts of certain corporate officers and majority stockholders.
    • Annulment of mortgage and foreclosure sale is a consequence of redressing these alleged corporate wrongs.

Issues:

  • Whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in not dismissing the case against Hi-Yield for improper venue despite trial court’s finding of a real action.
  • Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not dismissing the complaint against Hi-Yield due to violation of rules on venue through improper joinder of parties.
  • Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the annulment of real estate mortgage and foreclosure sale is merely incidental to the derivative suit.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.