G.R. No. L-14434. April 28, 1960.
EUSEBIO ESPINELI and ANASTACIA MOJICA, petitioners, vs. HON. JUDGE AMADO S. SANTIAGO, and MAGDALENA VDA. DE RAMIREZ, respondents.

FACTS

On February 6, 1958, respondent Magdalena Vda. de Ramirez filed Civil Case No. U-152 in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan against Magdalena Estate, Inc. She sought to compel the corporation to deliver Transfer Certificate of Title No. 6947 covering Lot No. 34 in Cubao, Quezon City, and to recover damages and attorney’s fees. Her complaint alleged that her deceased husband, Vedasto Ramirez, entered into a contract to buy the lot from the corporation in 1936, and that she completed payment of the full price on July 3, 1956. The corporation refused to deliver the title, citing an adverse claim by petitioners Eusebio Espineli and Anastacia Mojica. The petitioners claimed they acquired rights to the same lot through a deed of absolute sale from Rosita and Julio Ramirez (alleged heirs of Vedasto Ramirez) in December 1946, had since paid the monthly installments, and had fully paid the price. The petitioners intervened in the case as party defendants and filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of improper venue, arguing that the lot is located in Quezon City. The respondent judge denied the motion, ruling that the action was personal (for delivery of a certificate of title) rather than real, and ordered the petitioners to file an answer. The petitioners then filed this original action for a writ of prohibition to restrain the respondent judge from taking cognizance of the case.

ISSUE

Whether Civil Case No. U-152 is a real action that must be tried in the province where the property lies (Quezon City), or a personal action that may be tried in Pangasinan.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the writ of prohibition. The Court held that the action is a real action under Section 3, Rule 5 of the Rules of Court, which provides that actions affecting title to or recovery of possession of real property shall be commenced and tried in the province where the property lies. The core issue in the case is who, between Mrs. Ramirez and the Espinelis, has a better right to Lot No. 34 in Quezon City. The relief sought—delivery of the certificate of title—is entirely dependent on resolving that issue of title and possession. Therefore, the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan cannot adjudicate the case over the petitioners’ objection. The case must be tried in the proper venue, which is Quezon City. Costs were imposed on respondent Magdalena Vda. de Ramirez.