GR 129184; (February, 2001) (Digest)
G.R. No. 129184 February 28, 2001
Emergency Loan Pawnshop Incorporated and Danilo R. Napala, petitioners, vs. The Court of Appeals (Tenth Division) and Traders Royal Bank, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Emergency Loan Pawnshop Inc. (ELPI) purchased a parcel of land in Baguio City from respondent Traders Royal Bank (TRB). ELPI alleged that TRB misrepresented the property as a vacant residential lot, when in truth it was predominantly a public road with minimal usable area. Consequently, ELPI filed a complaint for annulment of sale and damages against TRB in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City.
TRB filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint on the ground of improper venue, arguing that an action affecting title to real property must be filed where the land is situated. The RTC denied the motion and a subsequent motion for reconsideration. Instead of filing an answer, TRB elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals via a petition for certiorari, contending grave abuse of discretion by the trial court. The CA granted the petition, annulled the RTC orders, and dismissed the complaint for improper venue.
ISSUE
(1) May an order denying a motion to dismiss on the ground of improper venue be appealed? (2) If not, is a petition for certiorari a proper remedy?
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The general rule is that an order denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory and cannot be appealed; the aggrieved party must file an answer, proceed to trial, and raise the issue on appeal from a final judgment. However, this rule admits exceptions. A writ of certiorari is appropriate when the trial court commits a patent and grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, or when appeal is not a speedy and adequate remedy.
In this case, the exception applies. The action was for annulment of a sale of a specific parcel of land located in Baguio City. Under the Rules of Court, actions affecting title to or interest in real property shall be commenced and tried in the proper court of the place where the property or any part thereof lies. The RTC of Davao clearly had no authority to take cognizance of the case. By insisting on trying the case despite the glaring impropriety of venue, the RTC committed a grave abuse of discretion equivalent to acting without jurisdiction. Therefore, the Court of Appeals correctly entertained the certiorari petition and dismissed the complaint.