G.R. No. L-14821. January 28, 1961.
Domingo de Jesus, as Administrator of the Intestate Estate of Florentina N. Vda. de Jesus, plaintiff-appellant, vs. Rodrigo Coloso, defendant-appellee.

FACTS

Plaintiff-appellant Domingo de Jesus, as administrator, filed an action in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Bataan against defendant-appellee Rodrigo Coloso. The complaint alleged that on February 12, 1955, Coloso entered into a contract with the deceased Florentina N. Vda. de Jesus. Under this agreement, Coloso was granted the exclusive right to manage a 315-hectare land (Hacienda Nolasco) in Samal, Bataan, for ten years, extendible for another ten, with an option to purchase the property. His duties included paying real estate taxes, improving irrigation, introducing permanent improvements, and delivering one-half of all produce to the estate.
The appellant alleged that Coloso failed to comply with these obligations, such as paying taxes and introducing improvements. Consequently, the appellant prayed for the rescission of the contract, the return of possession of the Hacienda Nolasco, and the payment of damages and attorney’s fees. Coloso moved to dismiss the Bataan case on two grounds: improper venue and the pendency of another action.

ISSUE

The primary issues were: (1) Whether the action filed in CFI Bataan was a real action, thereby making the venue proper; and (2) Whether the pendency of Coloso’s separate action in CFI Manila barred the Bataan case.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s order of dismissal. On the first issue, the Court held that the action was indeed a real action, not merely a personal one. While the complaint sought rescission of the contract, its ultimate and specific prayer was for the defendant to “return possession of the Hacienda Nolasco to plaintiff.” The action was fundamentally for the recovery of possession of real property, which, under Section 3 of Rule 5 of the Rules of Court, must be filed in the province where the property is situated. Therefore, venue was properly laid in Bataan.
On the second issue, the Court ruled that the pendency of Coloso’s action in CFI Manila (Civil Case No. 34243) did not bar the Bataan case. The Manila action, filed by Coloso, sought damages from the estate for allegedly preventing him from finalizing a sale of his rights under the contract. In contrast, the Bataan action sought rescission due to Coloso’s alleged breach and the recovery of physical possession of the land. The causes of action and reliefs sought were distinct: one was for damages arising from interference with a sale, and the other was for recovery of possession based on breach of contract. Citing Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation v. Aldecoa, the Court emphasized that different actions arising from the same contract but seeking different remedies are not barred by lis pendens. The validity of the contract might be an issue in both, but the principal issues and objectives differed. The case was remanded to CFI Bataan for further proceedings.