DOMINGO DE JESUS, IN HIS CAPACITY AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF FLORENTINA M. VDA. DE JESUS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. RODRIGO COLOSO, DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE.

This is an appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of
Bataan, Hon. Ambrosio T. Dollete, presiding, dismissing the action
instituted by the plaintiff-appellant, on the ground that the venue of
the action is improperly laid and that another action between the
parties involving the same issue is pending.

The complaint
alleges that on February 12, 1955, defendant Rodrigo Coloso and the
plaintiff’s intestate entered into a contract, whereby the latter
authorized the former to have exclusive right to manage a parcel of
land containing an area of 315 hectares located at Samal, Bataan, with
the duty of paying the real estate taxes due thereon (known as the
Hacienda Nolasco), improving the irrigation system thereof, introducing
thereon permanent improvements consisting of the planting of fruit
trees, clearing of trees, cultivation of annual crops, rendering an
annual accounting of his administration and delivering to
plaintiff-appellant one-half of all the produce from fruit trees and
annual crops, etc. The Agreement also contains a provision to the
effect that defendant shall have the right to the management and
administration of the land for a period of 10 years, extendable for
another 10 years, as well as the right of option to purchase the
property within the first 10 years at the price of P60,000.00.

The present action was filed in the Court of First Instance of Bataan
as Civil Case No. 2511 of that court. Alleging in the complaint that
the defendant has failed to comply with certain obligations in relation
to the land, such as payment of taxes, introduction of permanent
improvements, etc. and claiming that such failure warrants a rescission
of the contract, the plaintiff prayed for the rescission of the
contract, return of possession of the land by defendant to the
plaintiff intestate, and the payment to the latter by the former of the
sum of P50,000 by way of actual damages plus another sum of P10,000 by
way of attorney’s fees and other expenses. The defendant filed a motion
to dismiss the action, on the ground that the venue is improperly laid
and on the further ground that the case should have been filed as a
compulsory counterclaim in Civil Case No. 34243 of the Court of First
instance of Manila, entitled “Rodrigo Coloso, plaintiff, versus Domingo
de Jesus as administrator of the intestate estate of the deceased of
Dona Florentina N. Vda. de Jesus, et al.” Attached to the motion to
dismiss is a copy of the complaint and the answer in said Civil Case
No. 34243.

The first ground for dismissal of the action is
that the venue is improperly laid. Defendant-appellee argues that the
case at bar filed in the Court of First Instance of Bataan is not a
real action but a personal action, for the reason that appellant’s main
purpose in filing the case is “to rescind the contract so that appellee
may be deprived of his option rights under the contract.” This argument
is not true to fact. In plaintiff-appellant’s complaint, it is alleged
that defendant committed a breach of the contract, so plaintiff prays
that the contract be ordered rescinded and that defendant be ordered
“to return possession of the Hacienda Nolasco to plaintiff.” So, the
ultimate purpose or end of the action is to recover possession of real
property, not merely to rescind the contract. It is alleged that the
contract has been breached, a reason for which the other party demands
its rescission and the return of the property subject thereof. The
action, therefore, is an action for the recovery of the possession of
land and in accordance with Section 3 of Rule 5 of the Rules of Court,
the action was properly filed with the Court of First Instance of
Bataan, where the property is situated.

The second ground for the dismissal of the action, which was also sustained by the court a quo
as a valid ground for dismissal, is the fact that defendant-appellee
Rodrigo Coloso had instituted another action in the Court of First
Instance of Manila (Civil Case No. 34243). Defendant-appellee herein,
plaintiff in that case, claims to have the absolute right to sell his
title, right and interest in the land its improvements thereon, but
that plaintiff-appellant herein, defendant in that case, prevented him
from continuing with the final negotiations for the sale of his rights
under the contract; that in this action, Coloso, seeks the enforcement
of the agreement entered into between him and the deceased owner, and
that as a result of the action instituted by Coloso, filed in the Court
of First Instance of Manila on November 29, 1957, the action filed in
the Court of First Instance of Bataan should not be allowed to proceed.
The motion to dismiss on this ground of pendency of another action can
not be granted for the reason that the present action seeks recovery of
the possession of the property, while the other action instituted in
the Court of First Instance of Manila seeks recovery of damages for
failure of defendant therein, plaintiff-appellant herein, to comply
with the terms of the agreement. It is true that the validity of the
contract may be in issue in either case, but there are other issues in
the case at bar such as the breach of the terms of the contract by the
defendant-appellee and the consequent right of plaintiff to the return
of the possession of the land. In the case filed in the Court of First
Instance of Manila, the issue is whether defendant herein, plaintiff in
that case, may be entitled to recover damages arising from his failure
to execute the deed of sale over the land and his interference in the
negotiations for the sale of said land. In the case of Hongkong &
Shanghai Banking Corporation vs. Aldecoa, 30 Phil. 255, we held
that an action to annul a contract of mortgage is not a bar to another
action to foreclose the same contract of mortgage. Similarly the action
for damages in the Court of First Instance of Manila can not bar the
present action in Bataan.

Wherefore, the order of the Court
of First Instance of Bataan dismissing the complaint is hereby reversed
and the case is ordered remanded to that court for further proceedings.
With costs against defendant-appellee.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, Gutierrez David, Paredes, and Dizon, JJ., concur.