GR 130991; (March, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 130991 ; March 11, 2004
DIMO REALTY & DEVELOPMENT, INC. AND LUZ M. DIZON, petitioners, vs. LEONARDO P. DIMACULANGAN, respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Leonardo Dimaculangan filed a complaint for specific performance against petitioners Dimo Realty and the Dizon spouses before the RTC of Quezon City. He alleged that in 1967-1968, petitioners engaged his services as a geodetic surveyor for two parcels of land in Batangas, agreeing to pay him with a specific subdivision lot and a cash sum. Petitioners paid the cash and delivered possession of the lot but failed to deliver its title. Petitioners moved to dismiss the complaint, primarily on grounds of improper venue, arguing the action affected title to real property in Batangas. The RTC initially dismissed the case but, upon reconsideration by a different branch, reinstated it, ruling it was a personal action for specific performance properly filed in Quezon City where the plaintiff resided.
ISSUE
Whether the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City is the proper venue for the complaint for specific performance.
RULING
Yes, the RTC of Quezon City is the proper venue. The Supreme Court affirmed the rulings of the Court of Appeals and the RTC, holding that the action is personal, not real. The complaint’s primary objective is to compel the petitioners to execute and deliver the certificate of title for the lot, fulfilling their contractual obligation. This is an action for the enforcement of a contract, a personal action under the Rules of Court. The Court emphasized that the recovery of title or possession, if any, is merely incidental to this principal personal action for specific performance. Consequently, under Section 2, Rule 4 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, a personal action may be commenced in the place where the plaintiff resides. Since respondent resided in Quezon City, venue was properly laid there. The Court also found no grave abuse of discretion in the denial of the motion for inhibition, as petitioners failed to prove bias or prejudice with clear and convincing evidence.