8/29/2020 CentralBooks:Reader

680 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Rudolf Lietz Holdings, Inc. vs. Registry of Deeds of
Parañaque City
*
G.R. No. 133240. November 15, 2000.

RUDOLF LIETZ HOLDINGS, INC., petitioner, vs.  THE REGISTRY OF DEEDS OF

PARAÑAQUE CITY, respondent.

Actions; Jurisdiction; Venue; Jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of an action is conferred only

by law and may not be conferred by consent or waiver upon a court which otherwise would have no
jurisdiction over the subject matter of an action while venue of an action as fixed by statute may be changed
by the consent of the parties, and an objection on improper venue may be waived by the failure of the
defendant to raise it at the proper time.—While the ground invoked by the trial court in dismissing the
petition below was clearly that of improper venue, the Solicitor General confuses venue with jurisdiction. A
distinction between the two must be drawn. Jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of an action is
conferred only by law. It may not be conferred by consent or waiver upon a court which otherwise would
have no jurisdiction over the subject matter of an action. On the other hand, the venue of an action as fixed
by statute may be changed by the consent of the parties, and an objection on improper venue may be waived
by the failure of the defendant to raise it at the proper time. In such an event, the court may still render a
valid judgment. Rules as to jurisdiction can never be left to the consent or agreement of the parties. Venue is
procedural, not jurisdictional, and hence may be waived. It is meant to provide convenience to the parties,
rather than restrict their access to the courts as it relates to the place of trial.
Same;  Same;  Same;  Courts;  The court may only dismiss an action motu proprio in case of lack of
jurisdiction over the subject matter, litis pendentia, res judicata and prescription, but not for improper venue.
—Rule 9, Section 1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure states that defenses and objections not pleaded
either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived. The court may only dismiss an
action motu proprio in case of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, litis pendentia, res judicataand
prescription. Therefore, the trial court in this case erred when it dismissed the petition  motu proprio.  It
should have waited for a motion to dismiss or a responsive pleading from respondent, raising the objection
or affirmative defense of improper venue, before dismissing the petition. However, this was overtaken by
petitioner’s motion for leave to amend its petition.

________________

* FIRST DIVISION.

681

VOL. 344, NOVEMBER 15, 2000 681

Rudolf Lietz Holdings, Inc. vs. Registry of Deeds

of Parañaque City

Same;  Same;  Land Titles;  Property Registration Decree (P.D. No. 1529);  Jurisdiction of the Regional
Trial Courts over matters involving the registration of lands and lands registered under the Torrens System
is conferred by Section 2 of P.D. No. 1529, while jurisdiction over petitions for amendments of certificates of
title is provided for by Section 108 of said Decree.—Petitioner correctly invoked the jurisdiction of the
Regional Trial Court in seeking the amendment of its certificates of title. The jurisdiction of the Regional
Trial Court over matters involving the registration of lands and lands registered under the Torrens system
is conferred by Section 2 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, The Property Registration Decree. x x x More
specifically, jurisdiction over petitions for amendments of certificates of title, such as the one brought below,
is provided for by Section 108 of P.D. 1529.
Same;  Same;  Same;  Venue;  Actions affecting title to or possession of real property, or interest therein,
shall be commenced and tried in the proper court which has jurisdiction over the area wherein the real
property involved, or a portion thereof is situated.—In the case at bar, the lands are located in Parañaque
City, as stated on the faces of the titles. Petitioner, thus, also correctly filed the petition in the place where
the lands are situated, pursuant to the following rule: Venue of real actions.—Actions affecting title to or
possession of real property, or interest therein, shall be commenced and tried in the proper court which has
jurisdiction over the area wherein the real property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated.
Same; Same; Same; Pleadings and Practice; Annexes form an integral part of the pleading.—Before the
amended petition was filed, the trial court had already dismissed the petition based on improper venue. It
relied on the allegation in the petition that the lands are located in Pasay City. However, the titles of the
land, copies of which were attached to the petition, plainly show that the lands involved are situated in

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001743868fc3841ee19c2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/6
8/29/2020 CentralBooks:Reader

Parañaque City. The trial court should have considered these annexes, as these form an integral part of the
pleading.
Pleadings and Practice;  Amendments of Pleadings;  Amendments of pleadings are liberally allowed in
furtherance of justice, in order that every case may so far as possible be determined on its real facts, and in
order to speed the trial of cases or prevent the circuitry of action and unnecessary expense—courts should be
liberal in allowing amendments to pleadings to avoid multiplicity of suits and in order that the real
controversies between the parties are presented, their rights determined and the case decided on the merits
without unnecessary delay.—Amendments to pleadings are liberally allowed in furtherance of justice, in
order that every case may so

682

682 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ANNOTATED

Rudolf Lietz Holdings, Inc. vs. Registry of Deeds

of Parañaque City

far as possible be determined on its real facts, and in order to speed the trial of cases or prevent the
circuitry of action and unnecessary expense. The trial court, therefore, should have allowed the amendment
proposed by petitioner for in so doing, it would have allowed the actual merits of the case to be speedily
determined, without regard to technicalities, and in the most expeditious and inexpensive manner. The
courts should be liberal in allowing amendments to pleadings to avoid multiplicity of suits and in order that
the real controversies between the parties are presented, their rights determined and the case decided on
the merits without unnecessary delay. This liberality is greatest in the early stages of a lawsuit, especially
in this case where the amendment to the complaint was made before the trial of the case thereby giving
petitioner all the time allowed by law to answer and to prepare for trial.

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Regional Trial Court of Parañaque City,
Br. 257.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

     Ricardo J.M. Rivera Law Office for petitioner.
     The Solicitor General for respondent.

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

The instant petition for review is filed on a pure question of law arising from the Decision
rendered by the Regional Trial Court of Parañaque City, Metro Manila, Branch 257, in LRC Case
No. 97-0170.
Petitioner corporation was formerly known as Rudolf Lietz, Incorporated. On July 15, 1996, it
amended its Articles of Incorporation to change its name to Rudolf Lietz Holdings, Inc. The
Amended Articles of 1
Incorporation was approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 20, 1997.
As a consequence of its change of name, petitioner sought the amendment of the transfer
certificates of title over real properties owned by the said corporation, all of which were under the
old name, Rudolf Lietz, Incorporated. For this purpose, petitioner instituted on November 20,
1997, a petition for amendment of titles

_______________
1 Rollo, p. 38.

683

VOL. 344, NOVEMBER 15, 2000 683

Rudolf Lietz Holdings, Inc. vs. Registry of Deeds of
Parañaque City
2
with the Regional Trial Court of Parañaque City, docketed as LRC Case No. 97-0170.
The petition impleaded as respondent the Registry of Deeds of Pasay City, apparently because
the titles sought to be amended, namely,3
Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 99446, 99447, 99448,
102486, 102487, 102488 and 102489, all state that they were issued by the Registry of Deeds of
Pasay City. Petitioner likewise inadvertently alleged in the body of the petition that the lands
covered by the subject titles are located in Pasay City.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001743868fc3841ee19c2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/6
8/29/2020 CentralBooks:Reader

Subsequently, petitioner 4
learned that the subject titles are in the custody of the Register of
Deeds of Parañaque City.5 Hence, on February 16, 1998, petitioner 6
filed an Ex-Parte Motion to
Admit Amended Petition.   In the attached Amended Petition,   petitioner impleaded instead as
respondent the Registry of Deeds of Parañaque City, and alleged that its lands are located in
Parañaque City.
In the meantime, however, on January 30, 1998, the court a  quo  had dismissed the
petition motu proprio on the ground of improper venue, it appearing therein that the 7
respondent
is the Registry of Deeds of Pasay City and the properties are located in Pasay City.
Before counsel for petitioner could receive an official copy
8
of the aforesaid order of dismissal,
he filed with the lower court a Motion for Reconsideration.  On February 20, 1998, in view of the
dismissal9 of the petition, the lower court denied the Ex-Parte Motion to Admit 10
Amended
Petition.  On March 30, 1998, the lower court denied the Motion for Reconsideration.
Petitioner, thus, is before this Court arguing that—

________________
2 Ibid., pp. 19-21.
3 Id., pp. 22-35.
4 Id., p. 49.
5 Id., pp. 39-40.
6 Id., pp. 41-43.
7 Id., p. 17.
8 Id., pp. 44-47.
9 Id., p. 50.
10 Id., p. 18.

684

684 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Rudolf Lietz Holdings, Inc. vs. Registry of Deeds of
Parañaque City

The court a quo acted contrary to the rules and jurisprudence on the matter for the following reasons:

1. It has no power to immediately dismiss an initiatory pleading for improper venue;

2. Assuming the Order of 30 January 1998 was proper, it was nevertheless still a matter of right on
petitioner’s part to amend its petition in order to correct the wrong entries therein; and
3. The unassailable reality is that the subject parcels of land are located In 11Parañaque City, so venue
was properly laid despite that erroneous allegation in the original petition.
12
The Solicitor General filed on November 4, 1998 his Comment.  He contends that the trial court
did not acquire jurisdiction over the res because it appeared from the original petition that the
lands are situated in Pasay City; hence, outside the jurisdiction of the Parañaque court. Since it
had no jurisdiction over the case, it could not have acted on the motion to admit amended
petition. 13
On February 15, 1999, petitioner filed its Reply.   It discussed the distinction between
jurisdiction and venue, and maintained that the trial court had jurisdiction over the petition, but
that venue appeared to be improperly laid based on the erroneous allegation therein on the
location of the properties.
The issue involved herein is simple. May the trial court motu proprio dismiss a complaint on
the ground of improper venue? 14
This question has already been answered in  Dacoycoy v.
Intermediate Appellate Court,  where this Court held that it may not.
While the ground
15
invoked by the trial court in dismissing the petition below was clearly that of
improper venue,   the Solicitor General confuses venue with jurisdiction. A distinction between
the two must be drawn. Jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature

_______________
11 Petition, p. 6.
12 Rollo, pp. 67-71.
13 Ibid., pp. 78-79.
14 195 SCRA 641 (1991).
15 Order dated January 30, 1998; Annex “A,” Rollo, p. 17.

685

VOL. 344, NOVEMBER 15, 2000 685

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001743868fc3841ee19c2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/6
8/29/2020 CentralBooks:Reader

Rudolf Lietz Holdings, Inc. vs. Registry of Deeds of

Parañaque City
16
of an action is conferred only by law.  It may not be conferred by consent or waiver upon a court
which otherwise would have no jurisdiction over the subject matter of an action. On the other
hand, the venue of an action as fixed by statute may be changed by the consent of the parties, and
an objection on improper venue may be waived by the failure of the defendant to raise it at the
proper time. In such an event, the court may still render a valid judgment. Rules as to
jurisdiction can never be left to the consent or agreement of the parties. Venue is procedural, not
jurisdictional, and hence may be waived. It is meant to provide convenience 17
to the parties, rather
than restrict their access to the courts as it relates to the place of trial.
In Dacoycoy v. IAC, this Court ruled:
The motu proprio  dismissal of petitioner’s complaint by respondent trial court on the ground of improper
venue is plain error, obviously attributable to its inability to distinguish between jurisdiction and venue.
Questions or issues relating to venue of actions are basically governed by Rule 4 of the Revised Rules of
Court. It is said that the laying of venue is procedural rather than substantive. It relates to the jurisdiction
of the court over the person rather than the subject matter. Provisions relating to venue establish a relation
between the plaintiff and the defendant and not between the court and the subject matter. Venue relates to
trial not to jurisdiction, touches more of the convenience of the parties rather than the substance of the case.
x x x      x x x      x x x.
Dismissing the complaint on the ground of improper venue is certainly not the appropriate course of
action at this stage of the proceedings, particularly as venue, in inferior courts as well as in the courts of
first instance (now RTC), may be waived expressly or impliedly. Where the defendant fails to challenge
timely the venue in a motion to dismiss as provided by Section 4 of Rule 4 of the Rules of Court, and allows
the trial to be held and a decision to be rendered, he cannot on appeal or in a special action be permitted to
belatedly challenge the wrong venue, which is deemed waived.

________________
16 Republic v. Estipular, G.R. No. 136588, July 20, 2000, 336 SCRA 333
17 Heirs of Pedro Lopez v. De Castro, G.R. No. 112905, February 3, 2000, 324 SCRA 591.

686

686 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Rudolf Lietz Holdings, Inc. vs. Registry of Deeds of
Parañaque City

Thus, unless and until the defendant objects to the venue in a motion to dismiss, the venue cannot be truly
said to have been improperly laid, as for all practical intents and purposes, the venue, though technically
wrong, may be acceptable to the parties for whose convenience the rules on venue had been devised. The
trial court cannot pre-empt the defendant’s prerogative to object to the improper laying of the venue by motu
proprio dismissing the case.
Indeed, it was grossly erroneous for the trial court to have taken a procedural short-cut by
dismissing motu proprio the complaint on the ground of improper venue without first allowing the procedure
outlined in the rules of court to take its proper course. Although we are for the speedy and expeditious
resolution of cases, justice and fairness take primary importance. The ends of justice require that
respondent trial court faithfully adhere to the rules 18
of procedure to afford not only the defendant, but the
plaintiff as well, the right to be heard on his cause.

Rule 9, Section 1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure states that defenses and objections not
pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived. The court may only
dismiss an action  motu proprio  in case of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter,  litis
pendentia, res judicata  and prescription. Therefore, the trial court in this case erred when it
dismissed the petition motu proprio.It should have waited for a motion to dismiss or a responsive
pleading from respondent, raising the objection or affirmative defense of improper venue, before
dismissing the petition. However, this was overtaken by petitioner’s motion for leave to amend its
petition.
Petitioner correctly invoked the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court in seeking the
amendment of its certificates of title. The jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court over matters
involving the registration of lands and lands registered under the Torrens system is conferred by
Section 2 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, The Property Registration Decree, viz.:

Nature of registration proceedings; jurisdiction of courts.—Judicial proceedings for the registration of lands
throughout the Philippines shall be  in rem  and shall be based on the generally accepted principles
underlying the Torrens system.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001743868fc3841ee19c2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/6
8/29/2020 CentralBooks:Reader

________________
18 Supra, at 643-46.

687

VOL. 344, NOVEMBER 15, 2000 687

Rudolf Lietz Holdings, Inc. vs. Registry of Deeds of
Parañaque City

Courts of First Instance (now Regional Trial Courts) shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all applications
for original registration of title to lands, including improvements and interest therein, and over all petitions
filed after original registration of title, with power to hear and determine all questions arising upon such
applications or petitions. The court through its clerk of court shall furnish the Land Registration
Commission with two certified copies of all pleadings, exhibits, orders, and decisions filed or issued in
applications or petitions for land registration, with the exception of stenographic notes, within five days
from the filing or issuance thereof.

More specifically, jurisdiction over petitions for amendments of certificates of title, such as the
one brought below, is provided for by Section 108 of P.D. 1529, thus:
Amendment and alteration of certificates.—No erasure, alteration, or amendment shall be made upon the
registration book after the entry of a certificate of title or of a memorandum thereon and the attestation of
the same by the Register of Deeds, except upon order of the proper Court of First Instance (now Regional
Trial Court). A registered owner or other person having an interest in registered property, or, in proper cases,
the Register of Deeds with the approval of the Commissioner of Land Registration, may apply by petition to
the court upon the ground  that the registered interests of any description, whether vested, contingent,
expectant inchoate appearing on the certificate, have terminated and ceased; or that new interest not
appearing upon the certificate have arisen or been created; or that an omission or error was made in
entering a certificate or any memorandum thereon, or on any duplicate certificate; or that the name of any
person on the certificate has been changed  or that the registered owner has married, or, if registered as
married, that the marriage has been terminated and no right or interest of heirs or creditors will thereby be
affected, or that a corporation which owned registered land and has been dissolved has not conveyed the
same within three years after its dissolution; or upon any other reasonable ground and the court may hear
and determine the petition after notice to all parties in interest, and may order the entry or cancellation of a
new certificate, or grant any other relief upon such terms and conditions, requiring security or bond if
necessary, as it may consider proper x x x. (Emphasis ours.)

In the case at bar, the lands are located in Parañaque City, as stated on the faces of the titles.
Petitioner, thus, also correctly filed
688

688 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Rudolf Lietz Holdings, Inc. vs. Registry of Deeds of
Parañaque City

the petition in the place where the lands are situated, pursuant to the following rule:
Venue of real actions.—Actions affecting title to or possession of real property, or interest therein, shall be
commenced and tried in the proper court 19
which has jurisdiction over the area wherein the real property
involved, or a portion thereof, is situated.

Petitioner, however, named as respondent the Register of Deeds of Pasay City, under the
mistaken impression that it was still the custodian of the titles to lands in Parañaque. Later,
petitioner learned that a Register of Deeds for Parañaque City had taken over the record and
custody of titles therein. Petitioner, thus, promptly moved for leave of court to amend its petition.
This, to our mind, was justified. In preparing its amended petition, petitioner likewise corrected
its allegation on the location of the lands involved.
Before the amended petition was filed, the trial court had already dismissed the petition based
on improper venue. It relied on the allegation in the petition that the lands are located in Pasay
City. However, the titles of the land, copies of which were attached to the petition, plainly show
that the lands involved are situated in Parañaque City. The trial court should have considered
these annexes, as these form an integral part of the pleading.
At the very least, the trial court should have allowed petitioner to amend its petition, for this
was still a matter of right on its part.
Amendments as a matter of right.—A party may amend His pleading once as a matter of right at any time
before a responsive pleading is served or, in the case of a reply, at any time within ten (10) days after it is
20
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001743868fc3841ee19c2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/6
8/29/2020 CentralBooks:Reader
20
served.

Amendments to pleadings are liberally allowed in furtherance of justice, in order that every case
may so far as possible be determined on its real facts, and in order to speed the trial of cases or

________________
19 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, Rule 4, Section 1, first paragraph.
20 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, Rule 10, Section 2.

689

VOL. 344, NOVEMBER 15, 2000 689

Rudolf Lietz Holdings, Inc. vs. Registry of Deeds of
Parañaque City
21
prevent the circuitry of action and unnecessary expense. The trial court, therefore, should have
allowed the amendment proposed by petitioner for in so doing, it would have allowed the actual
merits of the case to be speedily determined,
22
without regard to technicalities, and in the most
expeditious and inexpensive manner.

The courts should be liberal in allowing amendments to pleadings to avoid multiplicity of suits and in order
that the real controversies between the parties are presented, their rights determined and the case decided
on the merits without unnecessary delay. This liberality is greatest in the early stages of a lawsuit,
especially in this case where the amendment to the complaint was made before 23
the trial of the case thereby
giving petitioner all the time allowed by law to answer and to prepare for trial.

WHEREFORE, the petition for review is GRANTED. The Orders dated January 30, 1998,
February 20, 1998, and March 30, 1998 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. LRC Case No. 97-0170
is ordered REINSTATED.
SO ORDERED.

     Davide, Jr. (C.J.), Puno, Kapunan and Pardo, JJ., concur.

Petition granted, orders reversed and set aside, LRC Case No. 970170 reinstated.

Notes.—The filing of an amended pleading does not retroact to the date of the filing of the
original, hence, the statute of limitations runs until the submission of the amendment. (Republic
vs. Sandiganbayan, 293 SCRA 440[1998])
Where some but not all the defendants have answered, plaintiffs may amend their Complaint
once, as a matter of right, in respect to claims asserted solely against the non-answering
defendants, but not as to claims asserted against the other defendants. (Siasoco vs. Court of
Appeals,303 SCRA 186 [1999])

_________________
21 Ventura v. Militante, G.R. No. 63145, October 5, 1999, 316 SCRA 226.
22 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, Rule 10, Section 1.
23 Refugia v. Alejo, G.R. No. 138674, June 22, 2000, 334 SCRA 230.

690

690 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Sualog

An order granting or denying a motion to amend the complaint on substantial matters is

discretionary with the court. (Zarate vs. Regional Trial Court of Kalibo, Aklan [Branch 2],  316
SCRA 594 [1999])

——o0o——

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001743868fc3841ee19c2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/6