Hernandez V DBP

RULE IV REAL ACTION
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. L-31095 June 18, 1976
JOSE M. HERNANDEZ, petitioner,
vs.
DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES and COURT OF FIRST
INSTANCE OF BATANGAS, LIPA CITY BRANCH, respondents.
FACTS:
Petitioner Jose M. Hernandez was an employee of private

respondent Development Bank of the Philippines.
On August 12, 1964, in due recognition of his unqualified service as
Assistant Attorney in its Legal Department, the private respondent
awarded to the petitioner a lot in the private respondent's Housing
Project
On August 31, 1968, after the petitioner received from the private
respondent's Housing Project Committee a statement of
account of the purchase price of the said lot and house in the
total amount of P21,034.56, payable on a monthly amortization
of P153.32 for a term of fifteen (15) years, he sent to the said
Committee a Cashier's Check No. 77089 CC, dated -October 21,
1968, issued by the Philippine Banking Corporation in the name of
his wife in the sum of P21,500.00 to cover the cash and full payment
of the purchase price of the lot and house awarded to him.
However, private respondent returned to the petitioner ,the
aforementioned check, informing him that the private respondent,
had cancelled the award on the following grounds: (1) that he has
already retired; (2) that he has only an option to purchase said house
and lot; (3) that there are a big number of employees who have no
houses or lots; (4) that he has been given his retirement gratuity; and
(5) that the awarding of the aforementioned house and lot to an
employee of the private respondent would better subserve the
objective of its Housing Project.
On May 15, 1969 the petitioner filed a complaint in the Court of First
Instance of Batangas against the private respondent seeking the
annulment of the cancellation of the award of the lot and house in his
favor
Private respondent filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the
ground of improper venue, contending that since the petitioner's
action affects the title to a house and lot situated in Quezon City, the
same should have been commenced in the Court of First Instance of
Quezon City where the real property is located and not in the Court
of First Instance of Batangas where petitioner resides.
On July 24, 1969, the respondent Court sustained the motion to
dismiss filed by private respondent on the ground of improper
venue.
ISSUE:
Whether the action of the petitioner was properly filed in the Court of First
Instance of Batangas
HELD:
The Court agrees that petitioner's action is not a real but a personal
action. As correctly insisted by petitioner, his action is one to declare null and
void the cancellation of the lot and house in his favor which does not involve
title and ownership over said properties but seeks to compel respondent to
recognize that the award is a valid and subsisting one which it cannot
arbitrarily and unilaterally cancel and accordingly to accept the proffered
payment in full which it had rejected and returned to petitioner.
RATIO:
Venue of actions depends to a great extent on the nature of the action to be
filed, whether it is real or personal. A real action is one brought for the
specific recovery of land, tenements, or hereditaments. A personal action
is one brought for the recovery of personal property, for the enforcement of
some contract or recovery of damages for its breach, or for the recovery of
damages for the commission of an injury to the person or property.
Under Section 2, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court
Actions affecting title to, or for recovery of possession, or for partition, or

condemnation of , or foreclosure of mortgage in real property, shall be
commenced and tried where the defendant or any of the defendants resides
or may be found, or where the plaintiff or any of the plaintiffs resides, at the
election of the plaintiff
A close scrutiny of the essence of the petitioner's complaint in the court a quo
would readily show that he seeks the annulment of the cancellation of the
award of the Quezon City lot and house in his favor originally given him
by respondent DBP

Hernandez V DBP

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hernandez V DBP

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hernandez V DBP

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RULE IV REAL ACTION

Petitioner Jose M. Hernandez was an employee of private

Under Section 2, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court

Actions affecting title to, or for recovery of possession, or for partition, or

You might also like