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 seeking to annul two successive deeds of sale covering two lots with improvements located in Pasay, Rizal. The first sale was executed by Muñoz in favor of defendant Rosendo R. Llamas, and the second by Llamas in favor of defendant Dionisia Palanca. Muñoz prayed that the sales be declared null and void and that he 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 is one affecting title to real property, as it seeks to annul the deeds of sale and to obtain a declaration of ownership over the lots. 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 shall be commenced and tried in the province where the property or any part thereof is situated. Since the properties are located in Pasay, Rizal, the proper venue is the Court of First Instance of Rizal, not Manila. The trial court therefore 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 as “well taken” impliedly incorporated the grounds stated therein.

AI Generated by Armztrong.