NUEVA MONTANA HOMEBUILDERS, INC., REPRESENTED BY BGEN. FELIX A. BRAWNER, JR. (RET.) AND/OR MARJORIE JANE P. BRAWNER, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, VS. DR. DOMINADOR VELASCO, DEFENDANT-…

Nueva Montana Homebuilders versus Velasco

The Case

This is an appeal brought by Nueva Montana Homebuilders, Incorporated, represented by BGen. Felix A. Brawner, Jr. (Ret.) and Marjorie Jane P. Brawner, against Dr. Dominador Velasco. The company sued to recover possession of fifty owner's duplicate certificates of title, plus damages, alleging that the doctor refused to surrender the titles despite demand. The trial court dismissed the complaint, but expressly without prejudice, on the ground of improper venue. The case matters for two reasons a reviewee must hold onto: it teaches which orders may be appealed, and it fixes the residence of a corporation for purposes of venue.

Procedural History

The company filed its complaint for recovery of possession of fifty owner's duplicate certificates of title with damages before Branch 23 of the Regional Trial Court of Trece Martires City, Cavite. Instead of answering, Dr. Velasco moved to dismiss on the ground of improper venue, arguing that the action was a personal action and that neither party resided in Cavite. The trial court granted the motion in a resolution dated September 25, 2012, dismissing the complaint without prejudice. The company moved for reconsideration, which the trial court denied in an order dated April 3, 2013. The company then filed the present appeal, assigning as errors that the trial court disregarded the Golden Arches case and that its presiding judge should be penalized for gross ignorance of the law. The appeal reached the Supreme Court, which dismissed it.

Facts

Nueva Montana Homebuilders, Incorporated is a duly registered corporation and the registered owner of real properties located at BMS Executive Village, now Jewel Homes, in Barangay Buenavista, General Trias, Cavite, covered by fifty transfer certificates of title. The fifty owner's duplicate copies of those titles were discovered by the Brawners to have been assigned by SSF Associates, Incorporated to Dr. Velasco through a memorandum of agreement executed between the company and the doctor.

On June 6, 2011, the company sent a demand letter asking Dr. Velasco to return the fifty titles. He ignored the demand, and his refusal delayed the development of the company's housing program. The company therefore sued for the return of the titles and for actual, moral and exemplary damages, attorney's fees and costs.

Dr. Velasco moved to dismiss. He pointed out that the memorandum of agreement attached to the complaint stated the company's address at Cityland Condominium in Makati City, while his own address was in Quezon City, so venue in Trece Martires City was improper. The company countered that its office address, as shown in its Secretary's Certificate, is in General Trias, Cavite. The trial court, however, looked to the Articles of Incorporation, which stated the principal office in Metro Manila, and dismissed the complaint without prejudice.

Issues

• Whether or not the appeal is the proper remedy from a trial court order dismissing the complaint without prejudice.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in holding that venue was improperly laid in Trece Martires City, Cavite.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1 of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court provides:

SECTION 1. Subject of appeal. - An appeal may be taken from a judgment or final order that completely disposes of the case, or of a particular matter therein when declared by these Rules to be appealable. No appeal may be taken from: x x x (g) An order dismissing an action without prejudice.

This provision is decisive because the order appealed from dismissed the complaint without prejudice, and the Rules expressly withhold the remedy of appeal from such an order.

Section 1 of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 1 of Rule 41 expressly states that "where the judgment or final order is not appealable, the aggrieved party may file an appropriate special civil action under Rule 65."

This is the rule the Court invokes to identify the correct remedy that the company should have pursued instead of an appeal.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the appeal must be dismissed as the wrong remedy. The dismissal was expressly without prejudice, and under Section 1 of Rule 41 an order dismissing an action without prejudice is not appealable. The Court relied on its earlier ruling in Casupanan versus Laroya, quoting it directly:

Section 1 of Rule 41 provides that an order dismissing an action without prejudice is not appealable. The remedy of the aggrieved party is to file a special civil action under Rule 65.

The Court stressed that the assailed resolution did not constitute a final determination of the rights of the parties, so the company should have filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, which is proper when there is no appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

On the second issue, the Court held that even if it resolved the appeal on the merits, it would find no basis to disturb the trial court's ruling on improper venue. The action was a personal action, arising from the doctor's failure to surrender the titles despite demand. For a corporation, the place of residence for venue is the location of its principal office as stated in its Articles of Incorporation, not an office address later appearing in the general information sheet filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Since the Articles of Incorporation placed the principal office in Metro Manila, venue was improperly laid in Trece Martires City, Cavite.

Doctrine

First, an order dismissing an action without prejudice is not appealable, because it does not completely dispose of the case. The aggrieved party's remedy is a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, there being no appeal or other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

Second, the residence of a corporation for purposes of venue is the place where its principal office is located as stated in its Articles of Incorporation. That stated address controls even if the corporation's general information sheet shows a different office address, for to hold otherwise would allow litigants to circumvent the rules on venue by simply opening offices in places that suit them.

Disposition

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, leaving standing the trial court's dismissal of the complaint without prejudice on the ground of improper venue.

Remember This

Memorize the line that an order dismissing an action without prejudice is not appealable, and that the remedy is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. Examiners use this case to test the correct remedy against a dismissal without prejudice, and to test that a corporation's residence for venue is fixed by its Articles of Incorporation, not by its general information sheet.