G.R. No. L-31095 Case Digest

G.R. No. L-31095 June 18, 1976

Jose Hernandez, petitioner

vs Development Bank of the Philippines and Court of First Instance of Batangas, Lipa City Branch, respondents

Ponente: Martin

Facts:

This is a case which involves the question of proper venue in real action.

Hernandez was an employee of private respondent DBP in its legal department for 21 years until he retired due to illness. DBP then awarded Hernandez a lot, payable by installment under the housing project committee of DBP. Hernandez paid the total amount of the lot using a check issued by the Philippine Banking Corporation in the name of his wife. However, more than a week after, the check was returned to Hernandez informing him that the award was cancelled on the following grounds: (1) that he has already retired; (2) that he has only an option to purchase said house and lot; (3) that there are a big number of employees who have no houses or lots; (4) that he has been given his retirement gratuity; and (5) that the awarding of the aforementioned house and lot to an employee of the private respondent would better observe the objective of its Housing Project. Petitioner protested against the cancellation of the award of the house and lot in his favor and demanded from private respondent the restoration of all his rights to said award. However, private respondent refused.

Hernandez filed a complaint in the CFI of Batangas seeking for the annulment of the cancellation of the award. He alleged that the cancellation was unwarranted and illegal for he has already become the owner of the said house and lot by virtue of said award on August 12, 1964 which cannot be unilaterally cancelled without his consent.

DBP filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of improper venue considering that the house and lot is in Quezon City.

Issue: Whether the action of the petitioner was properly filed in the CFI.

Held:

It is a well settled rule that venue of actions or, more appropriately, the county where the action is triable depends to a great extent on the nature of the action to be filed, whether it is real or personal. A real action is one brought for the specific recovery of land, tenements, or hereditaments. A personal action is one brought for the recovery of personal property, for the enforcement of some contract or recovery of damages for its breach, or for the recovery of damages for the commission of an injury to the person or property. 4 Under Section 2, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court, "actions affecting title to, or for recovery of possession, or for partition, or condemnation of , or foreclosure of mortgage in real property, shall be commenced and tried where the defendant or any of the defendants resides or may be found, or where the plaintiff or any of the plaintiffs resides, at the election of the plaintiff".

A close scrutiny of the essence of the petitioner's complaint in the court a quo would readily show that he seeks the annulment of the cancellation of the award of the Quezon City lot and house in his favor originally given him by respondent DBP in recognition of his twenty-one years of service in its Legal Department, in pursuance of his contention that he had acquired a vested right to the award which cannot be unilaterally cancelled by respondent without his consent.

The Court agrees that petitioner's action is not a real but a personal action. As correctly insisted by petitioner, his action is one to declare null and void the cancellation of the lot and house in his favor which does not involve title and ownership over said properties but seeks to compel respondent to recognize that the award is a valid and subsisting one which it cannot arbitrarily and unilaterally cancel and accordingly to accept the proffered payment in full which it had rejected and returned to petitioner.