Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 40 views

    128 Rudolf Lietz Holdings v. Registry of Deeds

    Uploaded by

    Nichol Uriel Arca
    The petitioner corporation filed a petition to amend real property titles reflecting its name change. The trial court dismissed the case for improper venue. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that venue is procedural and not jurisdictional, and may be waived.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    128 Rudolf Lietz Holdings v. Registry of Deeds

    Uploaded by

    Nichol Uriel Arca
    40 views3 pages
    The petitioner corporation filed a petition to amend real property titles reflecting its name change. The trial court dismissed the case for improper venue. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that venue is procedural and not jurisdictional, and may be waived.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner corporation filed a petition to amend real property titles reflecting its name change. The trial court dismissed the case for improper venue. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that venue is procedural and not jurisdictional, and may be waived.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    40 views3 pages

    128 Rudolf Lietz Holdings v. Registry of Deeds

    Uploaded by

    Nichol Uriel Arca
    The petitioner corporation filed a petition to amend real property titles reflecting its name change. The trial court dismissed the case for improper venue. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that venue is procedural and not jurisdictional, and may be waived.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 3

    Rudolf Lietz Holdings, Inc. v.

    Registry of Deeds of Paranaque City


    GR No. 133240, Nov. 15, 2000
    J. Ynares-Santiago

    Digest Author: N Munoz

    Petitioner: RUDOLF LIETZ HOLDINGS, INC.,


    Respondent: THE REGISTRY OF DEEDS OF PARANAQUE CITY

    Case Summary: Petitioner-corporation changed its name to Rudolf Lietz Holdings, Inc. Wanting this
    change to reflect on its TCTs, petitioner filed a petition for amendment of titles over real properties it
    owned under its old name before the RTC Paranaque City. It impleaded the Registry of Deeds of Pasay
    City as respondent and inadvertently alleged that the properties were located in Pasay City. Since the
    properties were really in Paranaque City as stated in the TCTs, the petitioner filed a motion to admit an
    amended petition seeking to implead the registry in Paranaque instead. The RTC dismissed the case
    motu proprio on the ground of improper venue, relying on the original petition the corporation filed.
    Aggrieved, petitioners filed a petition for review before the SC. The Court reversed the lower court’s
    ruling and held that a motu proprio dismissal based on venue is improper since venue in civil cases is
    merely procedural and not jurisdictional. Matters on venue may be waived by the parties either by
    express consent or by their failure to object thereto, unlike matters on jurisdiction over the subject-matter
    which is conferred only by law and is not susceptible to a waiver. Thus, unless and until the defendant
    objects to the venue, the latter cannot truly be said to have been improperly laid.

    Doctrine: Venue in civil cases is not jurisdictional but merely procedural. It may be waived by the parties
    either by express consent or by failure to object thereto. In case of waiver, the court may still render a
    valid judgment on the merits.

    Facts:
    1. On July 15, 1996, Rudolf Lietz, Inc. amended its Articles of Incorporation to change its name to
    Rudolf Lietz Holdings, Inc.
    a. This was approved by the SEC on Feb. 20, 1997.

    2. On Nov. 20, 1997, petitioner filed with the RTC of Paranaque City a petition for amendment of
    titles over real properties it owned under its old name.
    a. The petition impleaded Registry of Deed of Pasay City as respondent, apparently because
    the titles sought to be amended all state that they were issued by the said registry.
    b. Also, the petitioner inadvertently alleged that the lands covered by the subject titles are in
    Pasay City.

    3. However, petitioner later found out that the subject titles were in the custody of the Paranaque
    City Registry of Deeds.
    a. Hence, petitioner filed an ex-parte motion to admit amended petition, impleading the said
    registry in the suit.
    b. Petitioner also controverted its earlier admissions and stated that the lands are in fact
    located in Paranaque City.

    4. RTC (Jan. 30, 1998): dismissed the petition motu proprio on the ground of improper venue,
    since the respondent impleaded was the Registry of Deeds of Pasay City and that the lands were
    located in the same place.
    5. Even before the petitioner could receive an official copy of the decision, petitioner filed a motion for
    reconsideration.

    6. RTC (Feb. 20+Mar. 30 ‘98 respectively): denied both the ex-parte motion to admit amended petition
    and the motion for reconsideration in view of its earlier decision to dismiss the case.

    7. Hence, this direct recourse by the petitioner to the SC.


    a. (Case did not mention under which rule, but its probably under rule 45 on pure question of
    law?)
    b. OSG filed a comment and contends that the RTC rightfully dismissed the case since it did
    not acquire jurisdiction over the res as it appeared from the original petition that the lands
    are situated in Pasay City, and not in Paranaque.

    Ratio Decidendi:

    1. W/N THE RTC MAY DISMISS A COMPLAINT MOTU PROPRIO DUE TO IMPROPER VENUE —
    NO.
    a. Matters of venue are not jurisdictional in civil cases.
    i. Jurisdiction over subject-matter/action: conferred by law and cannot be waived by
    consent or failure to object thereto.
    ii. Venue of an action: may be changed by the consent of the parties, and an objection
    on improper venue may be waived.
    1. In case of waiver, the court may still render a valid judgment on the
    merits.

    b. In other words, the matter of venue is merely procedural.


    i. Provisions under Rule 4 RoC (Venue) establish a relation between the plaintiff and
    the defendant, and not between the court and the subject matter.
    ii. It is meant to provide convenience to the parties, rather than restrict their access to
    the courts.
    1. “Venue relates to trial not to jurisdiction, touches more of the convenience of
    the parties rather than the substance of the case.” (Dacoycoy v. IAC)

    c. Thus, unless and until the defendant objects to the venue (ie. through a motion to
    dismiss) the venue cannot be truly said to have been improperly laid.
    i. The RTC cannot preempt the defendant’s prerogative to object to the improper laying
    of the venue by a motu proprio dismissal of the case.
    1. Moreover, Sec. 1, Rule 9 RoC provides that defenses and objections not
    pleaded in a motion to dismiss are deemed waived.
    2. ITC: No motion to dismiss or objection was ever filed by the respondent.
    ii. [Allowable grounds for a motu proprio dismissal:]
    1. lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter
    2. litis pendentia
    3. res judicata
    4. prescription

    2. W/N RTC HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE PETITION TO AMEND THE TITLES — YES.
    a. RTCs have exclusive jurisdiction over all applications for original registration of title
    to lands, as well as over questions and issues that arise upon such
    applications/petitions.
    i. Sec. 108 PD 1529: xxx A registered owner or other person having an interest in registered
    property, or, in proper cases, the Register of Deeds with the approval of the Commissioner of
    Land Registration, may apply by petition to the court upon the ground that xxx that the name
    of any person on the certificate has been changed xxx

    b. In this case, the lands are located in Paranaque City, as stated on the faces of the
    titles.
    i. Sec. 1, Rule 4 RoC: 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.
    1. Forcible entry and detainer actions shall be commenced and tried in the
    municipal trial court of the municipality or city wherein the real property
    involved, or a portion thereof, is situated.

    c. Petitioners therefore filed in the proper court which has jurisdiction over the res.
    i. The RTC should have considered the annexes submitted by the petitioners,
    particularly the certificate titles, as such constitutes an integral part of the pleading.

    d. At the very least, the RTC should have allowed the petitioner to amend its petition, for
    this was a matter of right on their part at that time.
    i. Sec. 2, Rule 10 RoC: Amendments as a matter of right. — A party may amend his
    pleading once as a matter of right at any time before a responsive pleading is served
    or, in the case of a reply, at any time within ten (10) days after it is served. (2a)
    ii. The courts should be liberal in allowing amendments to pleadings to avoid multiplicity
    of suits and in order that the real controversies between the parties are presented.

    RULING: Petition GRANTED. LRC Case ordered reinstated.

    DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the petition for review is GRANTED. The Orders dated January 30, 1998,
    February 20, 1998, and March 30, 1998 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. LRC Case No. 97-0170 is
    ordered REINSTATED.

    You might also like