GO v UCPB (Nica) Real Estate Mortgage and damages against the bank and its officers with
November 11 2004 | Chico-Nazario | Real Action or Personal Action
Petitioner: Jimmy T. Go
Respondents: UCPB, Angelo Manahan, Francisco Zarate, Perlita Urbano, Atty.
Edward Martin
SUMMARY: Go and Looyuko are co-owners of Noah’s Ark. They applied for an
Omnibus Line accommodation with UCPB. The application was granted and was
secured by REMs over parcels of land in Mandaluyong. The line was
subsequently cancelled by UCPB so Go asked for the return of the TCTs covering
the properties. UCPB did not comply with this so Go filed a complaint for
Cancellation of Real Estate Mortgage with the RTC of Pasig. The RTC granted
Go’s petition. Upon appeal by UCPB with the CA, the CA set aside the RTC’s
order and dismissed the case on the ground of improper venue. Go claims that it
was properly filed in Pasig, where he resides, since the case was a personal
action. The issue is W/N the case is a personal action. NO. The action was for
recovery of the properties from UCPB. In a real action, the plaintiff seeks the
recovery of real property. It is an action affecting title to or possession of real
property, or interest therein. The venue for real actions is the court which has
territorial jurisdiction over the area where the real property or any part
thereof lies. Since the case is a real action, it should have been commenced and
tried in Mandaluyong where the properties are.
DOCTRINE: In a real action, the plaintiff seeks the recovery of real property. It is
an action affecting title to or possession of real property, or interest therein The
venue for real actions is the court which has territorial jurisdiction over the
area where the real property or any part thereof lies.
A personal action is one brought for the recovery of personal property, the
enforcement of some contract or recovery of damages for its breach. The venue
for personal actions is the court of the place where the plaintiff or defendant
resides.
FACTS:
1. Go and Looyuko are co-owners of several Noah’s Ark businesses. They
applied for an Omnibus Line accommodation for 900M pesos with UCPB,
which was granted.
2. They Omnibus Line was secured by Real Estate Mortgages over two
parcels of land in Mandaluyong.
3. The line was subsequently cancelled by UCPB so Go asked the bank to
return the 2 TCTs covering the mortgaged properties. UCPB didn’t heed to
Go’s demand. This prompted Go to file a complaint for Cancellation of
the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City.
4. Go claims that since the omnibus line did not materialize, the REMs over
the properties were likewise cancelled.
5. UCPB filed a motion to dismiss contending that the complaint is invalid
since it was filed in the wrong venue.
6. The trial court granted Go’s petition and denied UCPB’s motion to dismiss.
7. UCPB appeal to the Court of Appeals which set aside the order of the trial
court. The CA dismissed the case on the ground of improper venue.
8. Go filed an MR but was denied. Hence, this petition. He claims that a case
for cancellation of mortgage Is a personal action and since he resides in
Pasig, the venue was properly laid therein.
ISSUE/S:
1. W/N a case for cancellation of mortgage is a personal action – NO
2. W/N the case was filed in the correct venue – NO
RATIO:
NO, a case for cancellation of mortgage is a real action
1. In a real action, the plaintiff seeks the recovery of real property. It is an
action affecting title to or possession of real property, or interest therein e.g.
partition, condemnation or foreclosure of REM. The venue for real actions
is the court which has territorial jurisdiction over the area where the
real property or any part thereof lies.
2. A personal action is one brought for the recovery of personal property, the
enforcement of some contract or recovery of damages for its breach. The
venue for personal actions is the court of the place where the plaintiff
or defendant resides.
3. The controlling factor in determining the venue for cases is the primary
objective for which cases are filed. The Court illustrated this through citing
various decisions where it has consistently ruled that recovery of real
property by way of mortgage or even sale are real actions.
4. In the present case, the action was primarily an action to compel UCPB to
return to him the properties covered by the REMs over which the bank had
already initiated foreclosure proceedings. The primary objective is to
recover the real properties concerned.
NO, the case was filed in the wrong venue. It should have been filed in
Mandaluyong.
1. Since the case is a real action, it should have been commenced and tried in
Mandaluyong where the properties are.
DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The
assailed decision dated 31 July 2002 and the Order dated 14 November 2002
denying the motion for reconsideration are hereby AFFIRMED. With costs. TIaDHE