G.R. No. L-19668; October 22, 1964
Dominga Torres, plaintiff-appellant, vs. J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. and Eustaquio Alquiros, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

Plaintiff Dominga Torres purchased a 690-square-meter parcel of land in Quezon City from defendant Eustaquio Alquiros in 1951. The land was part of a larger tract originally owned by Telesforo Deudor. In 1950, the Deudor successors, including Alquiros, filed actions in Quezon City to quiet title against J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. Torres attempted to intervene but was denied. In 1953, the Deudors and Alquiros entered into a compromise agreement with Tuason & Co., approved by the Quezon City court, wherein they ceded their rights to the property for a consideration. The compromise, referencing a prior Supreme Court ruling in Evangelista vs. Deudor, recognized that a “sort of contractual relation” was established between Tuason & Co. and purchasers from the Deudors, like Torres, obligating the company to sell the lots to them at current prices.
Torres demanded in May 1953 that Tuason & Co. execute a new deed of sale for her lot at the prevailing price, but the company failed to comply. Consequently, Torres filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Manila, praying for an order compelling Tuason & Co. to execute the final deed of sale upon her payment of the purchase price, to credit her prior payment to Alquiros, and to issue a transfer certificate of title in her name.

ISSUE

Whether the action filed by the plaintiff in the Court of First Instance of Manila is a personal action for specific performance or a real action affecting title to real property, thereby rendering the venue improper.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of dismissal, holding the venue was improperly laid in Manila. The Court ruled that although the complaint was denominated as one for specific performance, its primary objective and essential nature determined the venue. The plaintiff’s prayer sought not only the execution of a deed of sale but also the issuance of a transfer certificate of title for a specific parcel of land situated in Quezon City. To grant such relief, the court would necessarily have to adjudicate and make a finding on the plaintiff’s ownership or right to acquire ownership over the real property. Consequently, the action ultimately affected title to or recovery of real property.
Applying Section 3, Rule 5 of the Rules of Court (now Section 1, Rule 4), actions affecting title to or recovery of possession of real property shall be commenced and tried in the province where the property or any part thereof lies. The Court cited its prior unanimous decision in Manuel B. Ruiz vs. J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc., which involved an identical issue and complaint structure concerning property from the same Deudor-Tuason compromise. The Ruiz precedent established that such an action, despite its label, is fundamentally a real action determinable only in the location of the property. Therefore, the proper venue was Quezon City, not Manila, and the dismissal by the lower court was correct.