R4-4 Lizares vs. Caluag
R4-4 Lizares vs. Caluag
R4-4 Lizares vs. Caluag
REAL ACTION
When an action is a real action, the situs of the property determines the court which has jurisdiction
FACTS: Cacnio bought from Lizares, on installment, a parcel of land situated in Bacolod City, making therefor a downpayment of P1,206, the balance of P10,858 to be
paid in ten (10) yearly installments of P1,085.80 each, with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum. After the agreement, Cacnio defaulted from payment, thus,
Lizares sent a letter to Cacnio demanding payment of P7,324.69, representing arrears in the payment of installments up to April 20, 1960, plus "regular and overdue"
interest, as well as "land taxes up to 70% of 1960". In this regard, Cacnio countered that he paid P1,500 sometime in 1960, thus, he is only liable for P5,824.69. Cacnio
issued a check for the said amount. Lizares, however, returned the said check and "refused the tender of payment".
CFI of Quezon City - Cacnio filed a case praying that he be awarded (1) damages, (2) attorneys fees, (3) Lizares be ordered to accept the “tender of payment”, and (4) a
writ of preliminary injunction be issued against Lizares.
Lizares moved to dismiss the complaint upon the ground that "venue is improperly laid," for the action affects the title to or possession of real property located in
Bacolod City, which was the subject matter of a contract, between Lizares and Cacnio, made in said City. This was denied by the CFI, on the ground that the action was
one in personam.
CA – denial of the motion to dismiss, upon appeal by Lizares, was affirmed by the appellate court.
ISSUE/s: WON the action is a real action, thus, beyond the jurisdiction of the CFI of Quezon City.
HELD: YES
RATIO: The Court of Appeals and the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Quezon City Branch, held that Civil Case No. Q-5197 of the latter court is an action in personam,
and that, as such, it does not fall within the purview of said section 3, and was properly instituted in the court of first instance of the province in which Cacnio, as
plaintiff in said case, resided, pursuant to section 1 of said rule 5.
We are unable to share such view. Although the immediate remedy sought by Cacnio is to compel petitioner to accept the tender of payment allegedly made by the
former, it is obvious that this relief is merely the first step to establish Cacnio's title to the real property adverted to above. Moreover, Cacnio's complaint is a means
resorted to by him in order that he could retain the possession of said property. In short, venue in the main case was improperly laid and the Court of First Instance of
Rizal, Quezon City Branch, should have granted the motion to dismiss.