Case Summary (G.R. No. 240720)
Applicable Law
The applicable laws in this case are derived from the 1987 Philippine Constitution, given that the decision was rendered in 1986. The case also pertains to the Civil Code provisions relevant to contracts, the jurisdictional rules under the Rules of Court regarding venue, and established jurisprudence regarding actions involving the recovery of possession of real property.
Factual Background
The petitioner and respondents entered into the Subdivision Contract that detailed the responsibilities of each party concerning the development and sale of residential and commercial lots. The petitioner's obligations included the construction of roads and amenities, payment of property taxes, and the exclusive authority over the subdivision's development and sale. Conversely, the respondents retained title over the property, maintained a reserved area, and were entitled to 40% of the gross receipts from sales.
Procedural History
On September 9, 1977, the respondents initiated legal action against the petitioner in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, alleging various breaches of contract, including failure to construct necessary facilities and to render account of the sales for the calculation of their share. They sought damages totaling P30,000. The petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss on grounds of improper venue, lack of valid cause of action, and estoppel. The trial court deferred its resolution of the motion until trial, leading to the present petition for review.
Main Issue
The critical issue for resolution was whether the respondents' action constituted a real action, as claimed by the petitioner, or a personal action, as determined by the trial court.
Court's Analysis
The Supreme Court ruled that the respondents’ action was indeed a real action. The property in question was located in Gumaca, Quezon, and the contract was executed in the same locale. Although the respondents did not explicitly seek possession, the termination of the contract necessitated the restitution of possession, particularly of unsold lots. Therefore, the matter directly tied to the land and required an action where the property was located, as stipulated in procedural rules.
Precedents and Justification
The ruling leaned heavily on precedent, specifically the case of De Jesus v. Coloso, which established that when a contract breach is alleged, leading to a demand for rescission and recovery of property, such actions should correctly be brought in the venue wher
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 240720)
Case Background
- The case involves a petition for review on certiorari by Briccio B. Tenorio (the petitioner) against Hon. Ernani Cruz Pano, Lagrimas C. Lagdameo, Sol C. Lagdameo, and the heirs of Alfredo C. Lagdameo (the respondents).
- The petition seeks to reverse two orders from the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch XVIII, namely:
- An Order dated January 26, 1978, which deferred resolution of a Motion to Dismiss until trial on the merits.
- An Order dated March 20, 1978, which denied a Motion for Reconsideration of the aforementioned Order.
Subdivision Contract Details
- A Subdivision Contract was executed on October 7, 1956, outlining the responsibilities of both parties:
Petitioner (Developer/Capitalist):
- Granted full possession of land in Gumaca, Quezon Province for purposes of surveying and subdividing into commercial and residential lots.
- Required to introduce improvements such as:
- 10 to 15 meter-wide avenues.
- Water and electrical facilities.
- An adequate drainage system.
- Responsible for all expenses, including real estate taxes, while the lots remain unsold.
- Given full authority to develop and sell the lots, including pricing.
Respondents (Owners):
- Retained title over the land, with all sales made in their names.
- Reserved 9,622 square meters of land, with its location to be determined jointly.
- Entitled to a fixed participation of 40% of gross receipts from sales based on actual prices.
Allegations and Legal Proceedings
- On September 9, 1977, the respondents filed a complaint in Civil Case No. 23788 for:
- Accounting, b