GR 183926; (March, 2010) (Digest)
G.R. No. 183926 , March 29, 2010
GENEROSA ALMEDA LATORRE, Petitioner, vs. LUIS ESTEBAN LATORRE, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Generosa Almeda Latorre filed a Complaint for Collection and Declaration of Nullity of Deed of Absolute Sale with application for Injunction against her son, respondent Luis Esteban Latorre, and Ifzal Ali before the RTC of Muntinlupa City. She alleged that she and respondent were co-owners in equal shares of a property in Dasmariñas Village, Makati City. She sought to nullify a Deed of Absolute Sale dated March 21, 2000, claiming her signature was forged and she received no consideration, and to recover her share of rentals from a lease contract respondent entered into. Respondent moved to dismiss on the ground of improper venue, arguing the action was a real action affecting title to property located in Makati City, and thus should have been filed in the RTC of Makati City. The RTC denied the motion to dismiss and proceeded to trial. Eventually, the RTC dismissed the case for want of jurisdiction, ruling it was a real action that should have been filed in Makati City. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied.
ISSUE
Whether the Regional Trial Court erred in dismissing the case on the ground of improper venue.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court denied the petition. The nature of an action is determined by the allegations in the complaint. Petitioner’s primary objective was to nullify the Deed of Absolute Sale and recover her alleged share in the Makati property based on her claim of co-ownership. This is a real action affecting title to or interest in real property. Under Sections 1 and 2, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court, real actions shall be commenced and tried in the proper court where the property is situated. Since the property is in Makati City, the proper venue was the RTC of Makati City, not Muntinlupa City. The RTC of Muntinlupa City therefore committed a procedural error in not dismissing the case upon respondent’s motion on the ground of improper venue. The dismissal by the RTC, albeit couched in terms of “lack of jurisdiction,” was correct because the venue was improperly laid.