81 Spouses Decena v. Spouses Piquero

Spouses Decena v.
Spouses Piquero
Callejo Sr. J. | G.R. No. 155736. March 31, 2005.
Topic: IV. Rule 2, Section 1 to 6, ROC
Nature: Appeal in the SC
PARTIES:
a. Petitioners - SPOUSES DANILO and CRISTINA DECENA
b. Respondents – SPOUSES PEDRO and VALERIA PIQUERO
DISPUTED MATTER: Applicability of Section 5(c), Rule 2 of the Rules of Court
SYNOPSIS: Petitioners filed a complaint in the RTC for the annulment of the sale/MOA they
entered with the respondents, including recovery of possession and damages. 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. They 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. However, 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,
conformably with Section 5(c), Rule 2 of the Rules of Court. The RTC initially ruled in favor
of the petitioners but upon MR, granted the respondents motion and dismissed the complaint.
The SC ruled that Section 5(c), Rule 2 of the Rules of Court, on joinder of causes of action,
does not apply. The petitioners have only one cause of action, a real action at that, and so,
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.
DOCTRINES:
a. 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.
b. 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.
FACTS:
1. RTC of Malolos, Bulacan
a. Petitioners who are owners of a parcel of land executed with the respondent’s a
MOA in which the former sold the property to the latter for the price of
P940,250.00 payable in six (6) installments via postdated checks.
b. Petitioners 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.
c. 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.
d. 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.
i. 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 of
the action because it was located in Parañaque City.
ii. 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, conformably with Section 5(c),
Rule 2 of the Rules of Court.
iii. 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 jurisdiction of the first level courts, and the other
or others are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC, and the venue
lies therein.
e. RTC Decision – Ruled in favor of the petitioners.
f. MR – Granted 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.
ISSUES/HELD:
1. Whether or not venue was properly laid by the petitioners in the RTC of Malolos,
Bulacan. – NO
a. The resolution of this issue is anchored on whether Section 5, Rule 2 of the
Rules of Court invoked by the petitioners is applicable in this case.
b. 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:
Sec. 5. Joinder of causes of action. — . . .

xxx xxx xxx
(c) Where the causes of action are between the same parties but pertain to
different venues or jurisdiction, the joinder may be 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; . . .
c. 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 place where the real property is located or where the
parties reside.
d. 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:
i. (1) the existence of a legal right of the plaintiff;
ii. (2) a correlative legal duty of the defendant to respect one's right; and
iii. (3) an act or omission of the defendant in violation of the plaintiff's right.
e. 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.
f. 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. A cause of action may be single although the
plaintiff seeks a variety of remedies.
g. 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.
h. AS APPLIED IN THE CASE:
i. Section 5(c), Rule 2 of the Rules of Court does not apply.
1. This is so because the petitioners, as plaintiffs in the 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 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, and are not
independent or separate causes of action.
2. 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, 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.
3. 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.
DISPOSITIVE:
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. Costs against
the petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
OPINIONS:
None.
___________________________________________________________________________
HELPFUL INFORMATION
None.

81 Spouses Decena v. Spouses Piquero

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

81 Spouses Decena v. Spouses Piquero

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

81 Spouses Decena v. Spouses Piquero

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Spouses Decena v.

DISPUTED MATTER: Applicability of Section 5(c), Rule 2 of the Rules of Court

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

c. Explaining the aforequoted condition, Justice Jose Y. Feria declared:

You might also like