G.R. No. L-42800. July 30, 1979.
LIM SE and BENITO LIM, petitioners, vs. HON. MANUEL A. ARGEL, Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Caloocan City Branch XXXV, JUANA SAN PEDRO-OCAMPO, FRANCISCO SAN PEDRO, GENARO BULOTANO and THE SHERIFF OF BAGUIO CITY and/or his deputy/deputies or DEPUTY SHERIFF ESTEBAN S. PAR, respondents.

FACTS

The case originated from a complaint for recovery of possession filed by Genaro Bulotano in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Caloocan City against Juana San Pedro Ocampo and Francisco San Pedro concerning Door No. 72 of the Venancia Building in Baguio City. The defendants then filed an unverified third-party complaint against the petitioners, Lim Se and Benito Lim, seeking to eject them from the same Baguio premises for alleged non-payment of rent. Notably, the original 1965 lease contract between Lim Se and Francisco San Pedro stipulated that the venue for any suit arising from the contract would be Baguio City. Petitioners moved to dismiss the third-party complaint on grounds of improper venue and litis pendentia, citing a pending case (Civil Case No. 2817) in the CFI of Baguio involving the same property and parties, which sought to settle the ownership and possession of the entire Venancia Building. The Caloocan court denied the motion and later granted a summary judgment, ordering the petitioners’ ejectment. A writ of possession was issued, and the petitioners were ousted, prompting them to file the instant special civil actions.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance of Caloocan City committed grave abuse of discretion in taking cognizance of the third-party complaint for ejectment and in issuing a summary judgment and writ of possession against the petitioners.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that the Caloocan court acted with grave abuse of discretion and in excess of jurisdiction. The third-party complaint was essentially a real action for recovery of possession affecting property situated in Baguio City. Under Section 2 of Rule 4 of the Rules of Court, such actions must be commenced and tried in the province where the property is located. The venue was improperly laid in Caloocan City, a rule designed for convenience and to prevent conflicting decisions. Furthermore, the principle of litis pendentia applied because Civil Case No. 2817 was already pending in the Baguio court, involving the same property and the same parties, plus the estate of Florencio Reyes, Sr., which asserted an adverse claim of ownership. The Court found that the private respondents deliberately avoided the proper Baguio forum, engaging in a manipulative abuse of the right to litigate by filing suits in Cavite and Caloocan to harass the tenant. The summary judgment and writ of possession were set aside. The lower court was directed to dismiss the third-party complaint on grounds of improper venue and litis pendentia, and the preliminary mandatory injunction restoring petitioners to possession was made permanent.