G.R. No. L-2832. December 21, 1950.
JOSE MUÑOZ, plaintiff-appellant, vs. ROSENDO R. LLAMAS and DIONISIA PALANCA, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

Plaintiff Jose Muñoz filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Manila against defendants Rosendo R. Llamas and Dionisia Palanca. He sought to annul two successive sales covering two lots with improvements located in Pasay, Rizal—one sale executed by him in favor of Llamas, and another by Llamas in favor of Palanca—and to be declared the owner of the properties. Defendant Palanca filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds of improper venue and failure of the complaint to state a cause of action. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the case against Palanca. Muñoz appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly dismissed the case on the ground of improper venue.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the order of dismissal. The action seeks to annul deeds of sale and to recover title to real property located in Pasay, Rizal. Under Section 3, Rule 5 of the Rules of Court (now Section 1, Rule 4 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure), actions affecting title to real property must be commenced and tried in the province where the property or any part thereof is situated. Since the property is in Pasay, Rizal, the proper venue is the Court of First Instance of Rizal, not Manila. The trial court correctly dismissed the case on the ground of improper venue. The appellant’s contention that the dismissal order failed to state its legal grounds was without merit, as the order’s adoption of the motion to dismiss impliedly incorporated the grounds stated therein.

AI Generated by Armztrong.