G.R. No. 182970 ; July 23, 2014
Emiliano S. Samson, Petitioner, vs. Spouses Jose and Guillermina Gabor, Tanay Rural Bank, Inc., and Register of Deeds of Morong, Rizal, Respondents.

FACTS

Respondent spouses Jose and Guillermina Gabor are the registered owners of a parcel of land in Tanay, Rizal, covered by TCT No. M-25565. On November 14, 1985, they executed a Deed of Assignment transferring a 20,631-square-meter undivided portion to petitioner Emiliano S. Samson as attorney’s fees. On October 22, 1987, Samson assigned this portion to Ma. Remedios P. Ramos. The Spouses Gabor filed an action for legal redemption. During its pendency, Samson and Ramos executed an Agreement of Rescission revoking the transfer. The CA, in CA-G.R. CV No. 25530, upheld the Spouses Gabor’s right of legal redemption, and this decision became final.
Subsequently, Samson filed an action for Partition of Real Property and Damages against the Spouses Gabor, which was dismissed by the RTC and the CA (CA-G.R. CV No. 38373), with the CA ruling that the final judgment in the legal redemption case extinguished Samson’s co-ownership. Samson’s petition to the Supreme Court was dismissed.
On April 4, 2006, Samson filed a Complaint for Recovery of Property or its Value before the RTC of Pasig City against the Spouses Gabor, Tanay Rural Bank, Inc., and the Register of Deeds of Morong, Rizal. He alleged that while paying realty taxes for his claimed one-third share, he discovered the Spouses Gabor had mortgaged the entire property to the Bank in November 2002. The RTC dismissed the complaint on grounds of improper venue, res judicata, and failure to state a cause of action. The CA dismissed Samson’s appeal, ruling it raised only questions of law and was thus improperly brought before it.

ISSUE

1. Whether the CA correctly dismissed the appeal for raising only questions of law.
2. Whether the RTC correctly dismissed the complaint on grounds of improper venue, res judicata, and failure to state a cause of action.

RULING

1. Yes, the CA correctly dismissed the appeal. The appeal from the RTC’s order of dismissal, which was based on improper venue, res judicata, and lack of cause of action, involved only the application of law (specifically Rule 16 of the Rules of Court) to the allegations in the complaint and motions. It did not require a re-evaluation of factual evidence, thus constituting pure questions of law. Under Section 2, Rule 50 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, an appeal to the CA raising only questions of law shall be dismissed.
2. Yes, the RTC correctly dismissed the complaint.
a. On Improper Venue: The action, though captioned “For Recovery of Property or its Value,” is a real action as its primary objective and all claims are anchored on Samson’s claim of ownership over a portion of the land. Under Rule 4 of the Rules of Court, real actions affecting title to or possession of real property must be filed where the property is situated. The property is in Tanay, Rizal; therefore, the proper venue was the RTC of Morong, Rizal, not Pasig City.
b. On Failure to State a Cause of Action: The complaint failed to state a cause of action against Tanay Rural Bank, Inc. It contained no specific allegations detailing the Bank’s liability or how it violated Samson’s rights, merely citing Articles 19, 20, and 21 of the Civil Code without factual support.
c. On Res Judicata: The elements of res judicata are present. The prior action for Partition (CA-G.R. CV No. 38373) involved the same parties (Samson and the Spouses Gabor), the same subject matter (the 20,631-square-meter portion), and the same cause of action (Samson’s claim of co-ownership arising from the 1985 Deed of Assignment). The CA’s decision in that case, which became final and executory after the Supreme Court’s dismissal of Samson’s petition, conclusively adjudged that the Spouses Gabor’s valid exercise of legal redemption made them the sole owners of the entire property, thereby extinguishing Samson’s claim. This final judgment on the merits bars the present action.