Professional Documents
Culture Documents
TITLE Go v. UCPB
MAIN POINT In a real action, the plaintiff seeks the recovery of real property, or as provided for in Section 1, Rule 4, a real action is an
action affecting title to or possession of real property, or interest therein. These include partition or condemnation of, or
foreclosure of mortgage on, real property. The venue for real actions is the same for regional trial courts and municipal trial
courts—the court which has territorial jurisdiction over the area where the real property or any part thereof lies.
FACTS Respondent bank granted petitioners' application for an Omnibus Line accommodation for P900k secured by Real Estate
Mortgages over parcels of land located at Mandaluyong City. For nonpayment of the obligation secured by the said mortgage,
respondent bank filed an extrajudicial foreclosure resulting to the public auction sale of the mortgaged property. Petitioner
filed for Cancellation of Real Estate Mortgage and damages with prayer for a TRO/writ of prelim injunction against the
respondent bank and its officers. Instead of filing an answer, respondent bank filed a motion to dismiss based on, among
others, the ground that the complaint was filed in the wrong venue.
RTC: Granted petitioner’s application for injunction
CA: Go filed a petition for review under Rule 43. CA set aside the orders of the lower court
ISSUE: Whether the complaint for cancellation of real estate mortgage is a personal or real action for the purpose of determining
venue
RULING: The cancellation of the real estate mortgage, subject of the instant petition, is a real action, considering that a real estate
mortgage is a real right and a real property by itself. An action for cancellation of real estate mortgage is necessarily an action
affecting the title to the property. It is, therefore, a real action which should be commenced and tried in Mandaluyong City, the
place where the subject property lies.
VII. PLEADINGS
A. Pleadings in general
1. Rules of Court, Rule 6, secs. 1-2; Rule 8, sec. 1
2. Batas Blg. 129 (1980), sec. 36
3. Revised Rule on Summary Procedure (1991)
4. A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC, 9 September 2008 or The Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases
B. Complaint
1. Generally
a. RULES of COURT, Rule 6, sec. 3; Rule 2, secs. 1 & 2
b. Batas Blg. 129 (1980), see. 33, par. (1)
3. Alternative
C. Answer
1. RULES OF COURT, Rule 6, secs. 4-5; Rule 8, secs. 10 and 11; Rule 9, secs. 1-2
SA.7 Spouses Jose N. Binarao and Preciosa Binarao v. Plus Builders, Inc., GR. No. 154430, 16 June
2006
YA.7 Mongao v. Pryce Properties Corporation, GR. No. 156474, August 16, 2005, 407 SCRA 201
(2005)
YU.7 Equitable Card Network, Inc. v. Josefa Borromeo Capistrano, GR. No. 180157, 8 February 2012
AL.8 Virginia M. Venzon v. Rural Bank of Buenavista, GR. No. 178031, 28 August 2013
D. Counterclaim and cross-claim
1. RULES OF COURT, Rule 6, secs. 6-9, 12; Rule 9, sec. 2; Rule 11 secs. 8-10
AV.8 International Container Terminal Services, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, GR. No. 90530, October 7,
1992, 214 SCRA 456 (1992)
BA.8 Spouses Meliton v. Court of Appeals, et al., GR. No. l01883, December 11, 1992, 216 SCRA 485
(1992)
CA.8 Alday v. FGU Insurance Corp. GR. No. 138822, January 23 2001, 350 SCRA 113 (2001)
DA.8 Cruz-Agana v. Santiago-Lagman, GR. No. 139018, April I l. 2007, 455 SCRA 203 (2005)
DAU.8 Ruiz, Jr., et al. v. Court of Appeals et al., GR. No. l0l560. August 17, 1992, 212 SCRA 660
(1992)
E. Reply
1. RULES or COURT, Rule 6, sec. 10
G. Detail in pleading
1 RULES of COURT, Rule 8, secs. 1-9; Rule 12
KU.8 Bacolod-Murcia Milling Co., Inc. v. Co., Inc., et al., GR. No. L-29041, March 24, 1981, 103
SCRA 436(1981)
LA.8 Far East Marble v. Court of Appeals, et al., GR. No. 94093 August 10, 1993, 225 SCRA 249
(1993)
LI.8 Filipinas Textile et al. v Court of Appeals et al. GR. No. 119800, November 12, 2003, 415 SCRA
635 (2003) 0
MA.8 Toribio v. Bidin G R No 57821 January 17 1985, 134 SCRA 162 (1985)
VIII. MOTIONS
A. RULES OF COURT, Rule 15; Rule 133, see. 7
B. Batas Blg. 129 (1980), sec. 16
C. Cases
CA.9 Cledera, et al. v. Sarmiento, et al., GR. Nos. L—32450-51, June 10, 1971, 39 SCRA 552 (1971)
DA.9 Cruz v. Court of Appeals, et al., GR. No. 123340, August 29. 2002, 388 SCRA 72 (2002)
DAU.9 KKK Foundation, Inc. v. Bargas, et al., GR. No. 163785 December 27, 2007, 541 SCRA 432
(2007)
DE.9 Aneco Realty Development Corporation v. Landex Development Corporation, GR. No. 165952
Julv 28 2008 541 SCRA 182 (2008)
2. Want of jurisdiction
a. RULES OF COURT, Rule 16, sec. 1, par. (a) and (b)
HA.9 Andaya v. Abadia, GR. No. 104033, December 27, 1993. 228 SCRA 705 (1993)
JO.9 Department of Agrarian Reform v. Abdulwahid, et al., GR. No. 163285, February 27, 2008, 547
SCRA 30 (2008)
KU.9 Republic v. Glasgow Credit and Collection Services, Inc, GR. No. 170281, January 18, 2008, 542
SCRA 95(2008)
3. Improper venue
a. RULES OF COURT, Rule 16 sec 1, par. (c)
5. Litis pendentia
a. RULES of COURT, Rule 16, sec. 1, par. (6)
LI.9 Arceo v. Oliveros, GR. No. L—38251, January 31, 1985, 134 SCRA 308 (1985)
MA.9 Buan, et al. v. Lopez, Jr., GR. No. L-75349, October 13, 1986, 145 SCRA 34 (1986)
SA.9 Investors’ Finance Corporation v. Ebarle, et al., GR. No. 70640, June 29, 1988, 163 SCRA 60
(1988)
7. Insufficient allegations
a. RULES or COURT, Rule 16, sec. 1, par. (g)
HA.10 Marcopper Mining Corp. v. Garcia, GR. No. L-55935 July 30, 1986, 143 SCRA 178 (1986)
JO.10 Fluor Daniel, Inc. Philippines v. EB. Villarosa &Partners Co., Ltd, GR. No. 159648, July 27.
2097 529 SCRA 321 (2007)
9. Statute of frauds
a. RULES OF COURT, Rule 16, sec. 1, par. (i)
B. Defaults
1. RULES OF COURT, Rule 9, sec. 3
CA.11 Co v. Acosta, GR. No. 64591 January 17 1985, 134 SCRA 185
DA.11 Lina v. Court of Appeals G R NO 63397 April 9, 1986, 153 SCRA 637(1985)
DAU.11 Botican v. Chu, Jr. G.R. No. 58036, March 16, 1987, 148 SCRA 541 (1987)
DE.11 Denso (Phils), Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 75000, February 12, 201727, 1987,
148 SCRA 280 (1987)