GR L 10458; (April, 1957) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-10458; April 22, 1957
VICENTE MIJARES and SULPICIA GUANZON, petitioners, vs. HONORABLE EDMUNDO S. PICCIO, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Cebu and PASTORA ALVAREZ GUANZON, respondents.
FACTS
On December 24, 1954, respondent Pastora Alvarez Guanzon filed a complaint against her husband, Jose M. Guanzon, in the Court of First Instance of Cebu. The complaint contained two causes of action: (1) for the annulment of a deed of sale in favor of Sulpicia Guanzon covering real properties in Negros Occidental and a deed of donation inter vivos in favor of Joven Salvador Guanzon covering real properties in Cebu; and (2) for the separation of conjugal properties. On October 19, 1955, the court granted Pastora’s motion to include Sulpicia Guanzon and her husband Vicente Mijares as indispensable parties. Instead of filing an answer, the petitioners filed a motion to dismiss on January 17, 1956, on the grounds of improper venue, misjoinder of causes of action and parties, and lack of jurisdiction. The court denied the motion on February 7, 1956, and also denied their motion for reconsideration. The petitioners then filed this petition for prohibition and certiorari to set aside the orders and dismiss the case as to them.
ISSUE
Whether there is a misjoinder of causes of action in the complaint, considering the rules on venue and joinder of parties.
RULING
Yes, there is a misjoinder of causes of action. The Supreme Court granted the petition. The joinder of causes of action is subject to the rules on venue and joinder of parties. In this case, the first cause of action seeks the annulment of two distinct transactions involving real properties located in two different provinces (Negros Occidental and Cebu), which violates venue rules as the action regarding the Negros Occidental properties cannot be joined with those in Cebu. Furthermore, the defendants in these annulment actions (Sulpicia Guanzon for the deed of sale and Joven Salvador Guanzon for the deed of donation) have separate and distinct interests, making their joinder improper. The Court set aside the lower court’s orders and dismissed the complaint insofar as the cause of action affecting the petitioners (the annulment of the deed of sale covering the Negros Occidental properties) is concerned, leaving the complaint valid as to the other defendants.