You are on page 1of 3

CIV PRO CASES (PART NI EAN)

RULE 4 VENUE OF ACTION


EL HOGAR FILIPINO, Mutual Building and Loan Association, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
A. P. SEVA, Judicial Administrator of the Estate of the deceased Leonor G. de Seva

FACTS:
El Hogar Filipino instituted a foreclosure proceeding against A.P. Seva.
The CFI-Manila ordered the sheriff to sell the property at public auction.
A.P Seva as the judicial administrator of the estate of Leonor G. de
Seva, alleged that the Court of First Instance of Manila has no
jurisdiction to order the public auction sale of the mortgaged property
situated in Occidental Negros, because the property is situated outside
the jutisdiction of the court.
ISSUE:
WON the CFI Manila has jurisdiction to order the public auction sale of
the mortgaged property situated at Occidental Negros
HELD:
Based on the doctrine in the case of Manila Railroad Co. vs. AttorneyGeneral, the court held that the venue is not connected with
jurisdiction over the subject matter; and the defendant's rights in
respect thereto, as they are conferred by section 377 above referred
to, may be waived expressly or by implication.
In volume 42, page 31, section 1528, of Corpus Juris, there is the
following statement:
PROPERTY IN SEVERAL COUNTIES. Although there is contrary
authority, where tracts of land situated in different counties are
embraced in one mortgage, the proper court of either county has
jurisdiction to foreclose the mortgage and order the sale of all
the land. Several mortgages securing an entire debt are in effect
one and may be foreclosed in any county in which part of the
land lies, . . . .
Therefore, when various parcels of land or real property situate in
different provinces, are included in one mortgage contract, the Court of
First Instance of the province wherein they are situated or a part

thereof is situated, has jurisdiction to take cognizance of an action for


the foreclosure of said mortgage, and the judgment therein rendered
may be executed in all the other provinces wherever the mortgaged
real property may be found.
EUSEBIO ESPINELI and ANASTACIA MOJICA, Petitioners, v. HON.
JUDGE AMADO S. SANTIAGO, and MAGDALENA VDA. DE
RAMIREZ, Respondents.
FACTS:
Magdalena Vda. de Ramirez instituted a civil case against the
Magdalena Estate Inc. (Corporation) requiring the latter to deliver and
surrender the certificate of title of land situated in Cubao, QC and to
recover damages. She alleged that her deceased husband and
Magdalena Estate entered into a contract whereby the latter promised
to sell the lot to Mr. Ramirez. Mr. Ramirez died but Mrs. Ramirez
completed the payment of the full price of said lot. She also paid the
expenses for the issuance of transfer certificate of title in her favor, but
the corporation refused to deliver the certificate of title.
In their anwers, the corporation alleged that they refused to deliver
the title to Mrs Ramirez because the spouses Espineli had also
demanded the title of the same lot by virtue of deed of absolute sale,
executed by Rosita and Julio Ramirez- as the alleged sole heirs of the
deceased Mr. Ramirez.
ISSUE: which party has better right to the lot in question
HELD:
Although the main relief sought in the case at bar was the delivery of
the certificate of title, said relief, in turn, entirely depended upon who,
between the parties, has a better right to the lot in question. As it is
not possible for the court to decide the main relief, without passing
upon the claim of the parties with respect to the title to and possession
of the lot in question, the claim shall be determined pursuant to
Section 3, Rule 5 of the Rules of Court in the province where said
property or any part thereof lies.

You might also like