9/13/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 454

672 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Decena vs. Piquero

*
G.R. No. 155736. March 31, 2005.

SPOUSES DANILO and CRISTINA DECENA, petitioners,

vs. SPOUSES PEDRO and VALERIA PIQUERO,
respondents.

Actions; Pleadings and Practice; Causes of Action; Elements;

Words and Phrases; A cause of action is an act or omission of one
party in violation of the legal right of the other which causes the
latter injury; A cause of action should not be confused with the
remedies or reliefs prayed for.—A cause of action is an act or
omission of one party in violation of the legal right of the other
which causes the latter injury. The essential elements of a cause
of action are the following: (1) the existence of a legal right of the
plaintiff; (2) a correlative legal duty of the defendant to respect
one’s right; and (3) an act or omission of the defendant in violation
of the plaintiff’s right. A cause of action should not be confused
with the remedies or reliefs prayed for. A cause of action is to be
found in the facts alleged in the complaint and not in the prayer
for relief. It is the substance and not the form that is controlling.
A party may have two or more causes of action against another
party.

_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.

673

VOL. 454, MARCH 31, 2005 673

Decena vs. Piquero

Same; Same; Same; Words and Phrases; A joinder of causes of

action is the uniting of two or more demands or right of action in a
complaint; In declaring whether more than one cause of action is

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017486271b8bcab432a4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/10
9/13/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 454

alleged, the main thrust is whether more than one primary right or
subject of controversy is present.—A joinder of causes of action is
the uniting of two or more demands or right of action in a
complaint. The question of the joinder of causes of action involves
in particular cases a preliminary inquiry as to whether two or
more causes of action are alleged. In declaring whether more than
one cause of action is alleged, the main thrust is whether more
than one primary right or subject of controversy is present. Other
tests are whether recovery on one ground would bar recovery on
the other, whether the same evidence would support the other
different counts and whether separate actions could be
maintained for separate relief; or whether more than one distinct
primary right or subject of controversy is alleged for enforcement
or adjudication.
Same; Same; Same; A cause of action may be single although
the plaintiff seeks a variety of remedies; If the allegations of the
complaint show one primary right and one wrong, only one cause
of action is alleged even though other matters are incidentally
involved, and although different acts, methods, elements of injury,
items of claims or theories of recovery are set forth.—A cause of
action may be single although the plaintiff seeks a variety of
remedies. The mere fact that the plaintiff prays for multiple
reliefs does not indicate that he has stated more than one cause of
action. The prayer may be an aid in interpreting the petition and
in determining whether or not more than one cause of action is
pleaded. If the allegations of the complaint show one primary
right and one wrong, only one cause of action is alleged even
though other matters are incidentally involved, and although
different acts, methods, elements of injury, items of claims or
theories of recovery are set forth. Where two or more primary
rights and wrongs appear, there is a joinder of causes of action.
Same; Sales; Rescission; Venues; An action for rescission of
the MOA on account of the other party’s breach thereof and his
failure to return the premises subject of the complaint, as well as
his eviction therefrom, is a real action which should be filed in the
proper court where the property is located.—The action of the
petitioners for the rescission of the MOA on account of the
respondents’ breach thereof

674

674 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Decena vs. Piquero

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017486271b8bcab432a4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/10
9/13/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 454

and the latter’s failure to return the premises subject of the

complaint to the petitioners, and the respondents’ eviction
therefrom is a real action. As such, the action should have been
filed in the proper court where the property is located, namely, in
Parañaque City, conformably with Section 1, Rule 4 of the Rules
of Court which reads: SECTION 1. Venue of real actions.—Actions
affecting title to or possession of real property, or interest therein,
shall be commenced and tried in the proper court which has
jurisdiction over the area wherein the real property involved, or a
portion thereof, is situated. Since the petitioners, who were
residents of Malolos, Bulacan, filed their complaint in the said
RTC, venue was improperly laid; hence, the trial court acted
conformably with Section 1(c), Rule 16 of the Rules of Court when
it ordered the dismissal of the complaint.

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, Br. 10.

The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.

     Ricardo J. M. Rivera Law Office for petitioners.
     Losa Quetulio Law Office for respondents.

RESOLUTION

CALLEJO, SR., J.:

The petitioners, Spouses Danilo and Cristina Decena were

the owners of a parcel of land, with a house constructed
thereon, located in Parañaque, Metro Manila (now
Parañaque City) covered by Transfer Certificate
1
of Title
(TCT) No. 134391 issued on February 24, 1998.
On September 7, 1997, the petitioners and the
respondents, the Spouses Pedro and Valeria2 Piquero,
executed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) in which
the former sold the property to the latter for the price of
P940,250.00 payable in six

_______________

1 Rollo, p. 46.
2Id., at p. 44.

675

VOL. 454, MARCH 31, 2005 675

Decena vs. Piquero

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017486271b8bcab432a4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/10
9/13/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 454

(6) installments via postdated checks. The vendees

forthwithtook possession of the property.
It appears in the MOA that the petitioners obliged
themselves to transfer the property to the respondents
upon the execution of the MOA with the condition that if
two of the postdated checks would be dishonored by the
drawee bank, the latter would be obliged to reconvey the
property to the petitioners.
On May 17, 1999, the petitioners, then 3
residents of
Malolos, Bulacan, filed a Complaint against the
respondents with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Malolos, Bulacan, for the annulment of the sale/MOA,
recovery of possession and damages. The petitioners
alleged therein that, they did not transfer the property to
and in the names of the respondents as vendees because
the first two checks drawn and issued by them in payment
for the purchase price of the property were dishonored by
the drawee bank, and were not replaced with cash despite
demands therefor.
The petitioners prayed that, after due proceedings,
judgment be rendered in their favor, thus:

“a. The sale/Memorandum of Agreement (Annex “A,”

supra) be declared null and void, rescinded and
with no further force and effect;
b. Defendants, and all persons claiming right under
them, be ordered to immediately vacate the subject
property and turnover its possession to the
plaintiffs;
c. Defendants, jointly and severally, be ordered to pay
the plaintiffs:

i. P10,000.00—monthly, starting 01 October 1997

until complete turnover of the subject property to
the plaintiffs, as reasonable compensation for its
continued unlawful use and occupation by the
defendants;
ii. P200,000.00—moral damages;

_______________

3Id., at pp. 39-43.

676

676 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Decena vs. Piquero

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017486271b8bcab432a4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/10
9/13/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 454

iii. P200,000.00—exemplary damages;

iv. P250,000.00—attorney’s fees and litigation—
related expenses; and
v. the costs of suit.
4
Other reliefs just and equitable are, likewise, prayed for.”

The petitioners declared in their complaint that the

property subject of the complaint was valued at
P6,900,000.00. They appended copies of the MOA and TCT
No. 134391 to their complaint. The case was eventually
raffled to Branch 13 of the RTC of Malolos, Bulacan.
The respondents filed a motion to dismiss the complaint
on the ground, inter alia, of improper venue and lack of
jurisdiction over the property subject matter of the action.
On the first ground, the respondents averred that the
principal action of the petitioners for the rescission of the
MOA, and the recovery of the possession of the property is
a real action and not a personal one; hence, it should have
been brought in the RTC of Parañaque City, where the
property subject matter of the action was located, and not
in the RTC of Malolos, Bulacan, where the petitioners
resided. The respondents posited that the said court had no
jurisdiction over the property subject matter
5
of the action
because it was located in Parañaque City.
In opposition, the petitioners insisted that their action
for damages and attorney’s fees is a personal action and not
a real action; hence, it may be filed in the RTC of Bulacan
where they reside. They averred that while their second
cause of action for the recovery of the possession of the
property is a real action, the same may, nevertheless, be
joined with the rest of their causes of action for damages,6
conformably with Section 5(c), Rule 2 of the Rules of Court.

_______________

4Id., at p. 42.
5Id., at pp. 48-56.
6Id., at pp. 62-65.

677

VOL. 454, MARCH 31, 2005 677

Decena vs. Piquero

By way of reply, the respondents averred that Section 5(c),

Rule 2 of the Rules of Court applies only when one or more
of multiple causes of action falls within the exclusive
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017486271b8bcab432a4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/10
9/13/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 454

jurisdiction of the first level courts, and the other or others

are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC, and the
venue lies therein. 7
On February 9, 2000, the trial court issued an Order
denying the motion for lack of merit. It found merit in the
petitioner’s contention that Section 5(c), Rule 2 was
applicable.
Meanwhile, the case was re-raffled8 to Branch 10 of the
RTC of Malolos, Bulacan. In a Motion dated December 20,
2000, the respondents prayed for the reconsideration of the
trial court’s February 9, 2000
9
Order. On October 16, 2001,
the court issued an Order granting the motion and ordered
the dismissal of the complaint. It ruled that the principal
action of the petitioners was a real action and should have
been filed in the RTC of Parañaque City where the
property subject matter of the complaint was located.
However, since the case was filed in the RTC of Bulacan
where the petitioners reside, which court had no
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action, it must be
dismissed.
Hence, the present recourse.
The petition has no merit.
The sole issue is whether or not venue was properly laid
by the petitioners in the RTC of Malolos, Bulacan. The
resolution of this issue is, in turn, anchored on whether
Section 5, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court invoked by the
petitioners is applicable in this case.
Under the said Rule, a party may, in one pleading,
assert, in the alternative or otherwise, as many causes of
action as he may have against an opposing party subject to
the conditions therein enumerated, one of which is Section
5(c) which reads:

_______________

7Id., at pp. 73-75.

8Id., at pp. 118-122.
9Id., at pp. 32-34.

678

678 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Decena vs. Piquero

“Sec. 5. Joinder of causes of action.—. . .

...
(c) Where the causes of action are between the same parties
but pertain to different venues or jurisdiction, the joinder may be
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017486271b8bcab432a4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/10
9/13/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 454

allowed in the Regional Trial Court provided one of the causes of

action falls within the jurisdiction of said court and the venue lies
therein; . . .”

Explaining the aforequoted condition, Justice Jose Y. Feria

declared:

“(c) Under the third condition, if one cause of action falls within
the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court and the other falls
within the jurisdiction of a Municipal Trial Court, the action
should be filed in the Regional Trial Court. If the causes of action
have different venues, they may be joined in any of the courts of
proper venue. Hence, a real action and a personal action may be
joined either in the Regional Trial Court of the place10
where the
real property is located or where the parties reside.”

A cause of action is an act or omission of one party in

violation of the legal right of the other which causes the
latter injury. The essential elements of a cause of action
are the following: (1) the existence of a legal right of the
plaintiff; (2) a correlative legal duty of the defendant to
respect one’s right; and (3) an act or omission 11
of the
defendant in violation of the plaintiff’s right. A cause of
action should not be confused with the remedies or reliefs
prayed for. A cause of action is to be found in the facts
alleged in the complaint and not in the prayer for relief.
12
It
is the substance and not the form that is controlling. A
party may have two or more causes of action against
another party.

_______________

10 J. Feria & M.C. Noche, Civil Procedure Annotated, Vol. I, 219-220

(2001 ed.)
11 Rebollido v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 81123, 28 February 1989, 170
SCRA 800.
12Baker v. Baker, 264 NW 116 (1935).

679

VOL. 454, MARCH 31, 2005 679

Decena vs. Piquero

A joinder of causes of action is the uniting of two or more

demands or right of action in a complaint. The question of
the joinder of causes of action involves in particular cases a
preliminary inquiry 13
as to whether two or more causes of
action are alleged. In declaring whether more than one
cause of action is alleged, the main thrust is whether more
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017486271b8bcab432a4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/10
9/13/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 454

than one primary right or subject of controversy is present.

Other tests are whether recovery on one ground would bar
recovery on the other, whether the same evidence would
support the other different counts and whether 14
separate
actions could be maintained for separate relief; or whether
more than one distinct primary right or subject 15
of
controversy is alleged for enforcement or adjudication.
A cause of action may be single although the plaintiff
seeks a variety of remedies. The mere fact that the plaintiff
prays for multiple reliefs does not indicate that he has
stated more than one cause of action. The prayer may be an
aid in interpreting the petition and in determining whether
16
or not more than one cause of action is pleaded. If the
allegations of the complaint show one primary right and
one wrong, only one cause of action is alleged even though
other matters are incidentally involved, and although
different acts, methods, elements of injury,
17
items of claims
or theories of recovery are set forth. Where two or more
primary rights and wrongs appear, there is a joinder of
causes of action.
After due consideration of the foregoing, we find and so
rule that Section 5(c), Rule 2 of the Rules of Court does not
apply. This is so because the petitioners, as plaintiffs in the

_______________

13 I CJS, Actions § 63, citing Hasbrouck v. Armour, 121 NW 157 and

Edward Davis, Inc. v. Adler, 156 N.Y.S. 157; Gartner v. Corwine, 48 NE
945.
14Ibid.

15Mc Pherson v. Smith, 328 S.W. 2d. 849 (1959).

16Ibid.

17 1 CJS, Actions § 365, citing U.S. Bankers’ Trust Co. v. City of Raton,
66 L.ed. 642. (1922).

680

680 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Decena vs. Piquero

court a quo, had only one cause of action against the

respondents, namely, the breach of the MOA upon the
latter’s refusal to pay the first two installments in payment
of the property as agreed upon, and turn over to the
petitioners the possession of the real property, as well as
the house constructed thereon occupied by the respondents.
The claim for damages for reasonable compensation for the
respondents’ use and occupation of the property, in the
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017486271b8bcab432a4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/10
9/13/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 454

interim, as well as moral and exemplary damages suffered

by the petitioners on account of the aforestated breach of
contract of the respondents are merely incidental to the
main cause of action,
18
and are not independent or separate
causes of action.
The action of the petitioners for the rescission of the
MOA on account of the respondents’ breach thereof and the
latter’s failure to return the premises subject of the
complaint to the petitioners,
19
and the respondents’ eviction
therefrom is a real action. As such, the action should have
been filed in the proper court where the property is located,
namely, in Parañaque City, conformably with Section 1,
Rule 4 of the Rules of Court which reads:

“SECTION 1. Venue of real actions.—Actions affecting title to or

possession of real property, or interest therein, shall be
commenced and tried in the proper court which has jurisdiction
over the area wherein the real property involved, or a portion
thereof, is situated.”

Since the petitioners, who were residents of Malolos,

Bulacan, filed their complaint in the said RTC, venue was
improperly laid; hence, the trial court acted conformably
with Section 1(c), Rule 16 of the Rules of Court when it
ordered the dismissal of the complaint.

_______________

18 U.S. Bankers’ Trust Company v. City of Raton, 66 L.ed. 642 (1922).

19 Punsalan, Jr. v. Vda. de Lacsamana, G.R. No. L-55729, 28 March
1983, 121 SCRA 331; Tenorio v. Hon. Paño , 230 Phil. 17; 146 SCRA 74
(1986).

681

VOL. 454, MARCH 31, 2005 681

Pahamotang vs. Philippine National Bank (PNB)

IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is

DENIED for lack of merit. Costs against the petitioners.
SO ORDERED.

          Puno (Chairman), Austria-Martinez, Tinga and

Chico-Nazario, JJ., concur.

Petition denied.

Notes.—A dismissal based on the lack of cause of action

is a dismissal without prejudice, and the plaintiff is not
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017486271b8bcab432a4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/10
9/13/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 454

barred from filing a new suit against the defendant

involving the same facts, but raising a cause of action
arising therefrom. (Young vs. Keng Seng, 398 SCRA 629
[2003])
It is not the lack or absence of cause of action that is a
ground for dismissal of the complaint but rather the fact
that the complaint states no cause of action—“failure to
state a cause” of action refers to the insufficiency of
allegation in the pleading, unlike “lack of cause of action”
which refers to the insufficiency of factual basis for the
action. (Bank of America NT & SA vs. Court of Appeals,
400 SCRA 156 [2003])

——o0o——

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017486271b8bcab432a4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/10