Case Digest (G.R. No. 155736)
Facts:
The case is Spouses Danilo and Cristina Decena v. Spouses Pedro and Valeria Piquero, G.R. No. 155736, March 31, 2005, Second Division, Callejo, Sr., J., writing for the Court. The petitioners are Spouses Danilo and Cristina Decena; the respondents are Spouses Pedro and Valeria Piquero.On September 7, 1997 the parties executed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) by which the Decenas sold to the Piqueros a parcel of land in Parañaque (covered by TCT No. 134391) for P940,250.00, payable in six installments by postdated checks. The vendees took immediate possession. The MOA contained a conditional reconveyance provision: if two of the postdated checks were dishonored, the purchasers would reconvey the property to the sellers.
After two checks were allegedly dishonored and not replaced, the Decenas filed, on May 17, 1999, a complaint in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan (initially raffled to Branch 13 and later re-raffled to Branch 10) seeking annulment/rescission of the sale/MOA, recovery of possession, and damages (including P10,000 monthly compensation from October 1, 1997 until turnover, P200,000 moral damages, P200,000 exemplary damages, P250,000 attorneys’ fees, and costs). They attached the MOA and the TCT to their complaint.
The Piqueros moved to dismiss for improper venue and lack of jurisdiction over the property, arguing the principal action was a real action (affecting title/possession) that should have been brought in the RTC of Parañaque where the property is situated. The Decenas opposed, relying on Section 5(c), Rule 2 of the Rules of Court to justify joinder of their personal claims for damages with the real-action claim and to sustain venue in Bulacan where they resided.
The trial court first denied the respondents’ motion on February 9, 2000, but on reconsideration (motion filed December 20, 2000) the court, by Order dated October 16, 2001, granted the motion and dismissed the complaint for improper venue, holding that the principal cause was a real action that must be filed in Parañaque. The Decenas filed the present recourse to the Court, which resolved the matter on March 31, 2005.
Issues:
- Was venue properly laid by the petitioners in the RTC of Malolos, Bulacan?
- Does Section 5(c), Rule 2 of the Rules of Court permit the joinder invoked by the petitioners in this case (i.e., joinder of a real-action remedy with personal damages claims such that venue in Bulacan is proper)?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)