This case involves a dispute over the venue for a lawsuit filed by Elumba Industries against Paderanga regarding a lease agreement for commercial property. Paderanga subdivided the leased premises and took possession of half, leading Elumba to file suit in Dipolog City seeking damages and to fix the lease period at five years. Paderanga argued the suit was a real action that should have been filed in Ozamis City where the property is located. The Supreme Court agreed, finding that while the suit was an action in personam between the parties, its ultimate purpose was the recovery of possession of the property, making it a real action that must be filed in the province where the property is situated. Thus, venue was
This case involves a dispute over the venue for a lawsuit filed by Elumba Industries against Paderanga regarding a lease agreement for commercial property. Paderanga subdivided the leased premises and took possession of half, leading Elumba to file suit in Dipolog City seeking damages and to fix the lease period at five years. Paderanga argued the suit was a real action that should have been filed in Ozamis City where the property is located. The Supreme Court agreed, finding that while the suit was an action in personam between the parties, its ultimate purpose was the recovery of possession of the property, making it a real action that must be filed in the province where the property is situated. Thus, venue was
Original Description:
Civil procedure. case digest. real and personal action. action in rem and in personam
This case involves a dispute over the venue for a lawsuit filed by Elumba Industries against Paderanga regarding a lease agreement for commercial property. Paderanga subdivided the leased premises and took possession of half, leading Elumba to file suit in Dipolog City seeking damages and to fix the lease period at five years. Paderanga argued the suit was a real action that should have been filed in Ozamis City where the property is located. The Supreme Court agreed, finding that while the suit was an action in personam between the parties, its ultimate purpose was the recovery of possession of the property, making it a real action that must be filed in the province where the property is situated. Thus, venue was
This case involves a dispute over the venue for a lawsuit filed by Elumba Industries against Paderanga regarding a lease agreement for commercial property. Paderanga subdivided the leased premises and took possession of half, leading Elumba to file suit in Dipolog City seeking damages and to fix the lease period at five years. Paderanga argued the suit was a real action that should have been filed in Ozamis City where the property is located. The Supreme Court agreed, finding that while the suit was an action in personam between the parties, its ultimate purpose was the recovery of possession of the property, making it a real action that must be filed in the province where the property is situated. Thus, venue was
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 2
PADERANGA vs BUISSAN
GR No. 49475, September 28, 1993
First Division Bellosillo, J., Facts:
Paderanga and Elumba Industries entered into an oral contract of
lease for the use of a commercial space within a building owned by Paderanga in Ozamis City. The lease was for an indefinite period.
Paderanga subdivided the leased premises into two by
constructing a partition wall in between. He then took possession of the other half with the acquiescence of the manager of Elumba.
Elumba then filed an action for damages which at the same time, praying for the fixing of the period of lease at five years, in CFI (now RTC) of Zamboanga del Norte based in Dipolog City.
Paderanga, a resident in Ozamis City, moved for its dismissal
contending that the action was a real action which should have been filed with CFI (RTC) of MIsamis Occidental where the property in question is situated. RTC
DENIED Motion to Dismiss
The case merely involved the enforcement of the contract of lease; there was no question of ownership raised.
Paderanga, on his motion for reconsideration, contended that
while the action did not involve a question of ownership, it was nevertheless seeking recovery of possession, thus, it was a real action.
RTC
DENIED Motion for reconsideration
While admitting that the case pray for recovery of possession, such is not the main issue at hand
When case reached SC:
PADERANGA Inasmuch Elumba seeks to recover possession of the portion of real property, the case should have been filed in the CFI of Ozamis City. It being a real action, venue is laid in the court having jurisdiction over the territory, in which property lies.
ELUMBA The present action is chiefly for damages arising fron an alleged breach in the lease contract, hence, the issue of recovery is merely incidental. The action is one in personam and not in rem. Therefore venue may be laid in the
place where plaintiff or defendant
resides at the option of the plaintiff.
ISSUE: Whether or not venue was properly laid in the CFI Dipolog City HELD: NO Elumba appears to be confused over the difference between real action and personal action vis-avis actions in personam and in rem. The former determines venue; and the latter the binding effect of a decision the court may render over the party, whether impleaded or not. REAL ACTION
PERSONAL ACTION
IN REM
Plaintiff seeks the
recovery of real property, or an action affecting title to real property, or for the recovery of possession, or for partition, or condemnation or foreclosure of a mortgage VENUE: RTC having jurisdiction over the territory in which subject property lies
Plaintiff seeks the
recovery of personal property, the enforcement of a contract or the recovery of damages
An action against a person on the basis of his personal liability
IN PERSONA M An action against the thing itself, instead of against the person
VENUE: RTC where
the defendant or any of the defendants resides or may be found, or where the plaintiff or any of the plaintiffs resides
It is undubitable that the action instituted by Elumba against Paderanga
affects the parties alone, not the whole world. Hence, it is an action in personam. However, this does not automatically mean that the action
for damages and to fix period of the lease contract is also a personal action. A personal action may not be necessarily be an action in personam and a real action may not be at the same time be an action in rem. While it may be that instant complaint does not explicitly pray for the recovery of possession, such is the necessary consequence thereof. The instant action therefore does not operate to efface the fundamental and prime objective of the nature of the case which is to recover the one half portion repossessed by the lessor, herein
petitioner. Indeed, where the ultimate purpose of an action
involves title to, or seeks recovery of possession, partition or condemnation of, or foreclosure of mortgage on real property, such action must be deemed a real action and must perforce be commenced and tried in the province where the property or any part thereof is situated. Therefore, RTC, in denying petitioners motion to dismiss, gravely abused his discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
