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.

Domingo de Jesus versus Coloso

The Case

This is Domingo de Jesus versus Coloso, decided by the Supreme Court in January 1961. Domingo de Jesus, as administrator of the intestate estate of Florentina Vda. de Jesus, sues Rodrigo Coloso to rescind a contract over a 315-hectare parcel of land in Samal, Bataan, known as the Hacienda Nolasco, and to recover possession of that land. The case matters because it teaches two procedural lessons every examinee must carry: how to classify an action as real or personal for purposes of venue, and when the pendency of another action is, and is not, a ground to dismiss.

Procedural History

The complaint was filed in the Court of First Instance of Bataan. The defendant moved to dismiss on two grounds: that the venue was improperly laid, and that another action between the same parties involving the same issue was pending in the Court of First Instance of Manila. The trial court, presided over by Judge Ambrosio T. Dollete, sustained both grounds and dismissed the action. The plaintiff appealed directly to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court reversed the dismissal and remanded the case to the Bataan court for further proceedings.

Facts

On February 12, 1955, Rodrigo Coloso and the plaintiff's intestate entered into a contract. Under it, Coloso was given the exclusive right to manage the Hacienda Nolasco, a parcel of land of 315 hectares in Samal, Bataan. He was bound to pay the real estate taxes, improve the irrigation system, introduce permanent improvements such as planting fruit trees and clearing trees, cultivate annual crops, render an annual accounting, and deliver to the plaintiff one-half of all the produce. The agreement gave him the management for ten years, extendable for another ten years, and an option to purchase the property within the first ten years at 60,000 pesos.

The plaintiff later filed suit in Bataan, alleging that Coloso failed to comply with his obligations, such as paying taxes and introducing permanent improvements, and that this failure warranted rescission. The plaintiff prayed for rescission, for the return of possession of the land, for 50,000 pesos in actual damages, and for 10,000 pesos in attorney's fees and expenses.

Coloso moved to dismiss, attaching the complaint and answer in a case he had earlier filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila. In that Manila case, Coloso claimed the absolute right to sell his title, right, and interest in the land and its improvements, and alleged that the plaintiff prevented him from continuing final negotiations for the sale. The trial court dismissed the Bataan action on both grounds raised.

Issues

• Whether or not the action filed in Bataan is a real action for the recovery of possession of land, so that venue was properly laid in the court of the place where the property is situated.
• Whether or not the pendency of the action in the Court of First Instance of Manila is a bar to the Bataan action.

Applicable Provisions

Section 3 of Rule 5 of the Rules of Court, on venue of real actions, provides:

Actions affecting title to, or for recovery of possession, or for partition or condemnation of, or foreclosure of mortgage on, real property, shall be commenced and tried in the province where the property or any part thereof lies.

This provision governs the first issue: if the action is one for recovery of possession of real property, it belongs in Bataan, where the land lies.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the action is a real action. The defendant argued that the main purpose was merely to rescind the contract and deprive him of his option rights, but the Court found this not true to fact. The complaint alleged breach and prayed that the contract be rescinded and that the defendant be ordered to return possession of the Hacienda Nolasco. The Court said the ultimate purpose or end of the action is to recover possession of real property, not merely to rescind the contract. Being an action for the recovery of possession of land, it was properly filed in Bataan under Section 3 of Rule 5.

On the second issue, the Court held that the pendency of the Manila action was not a bar. The Bataan action seeks recovery of possession, while the Manila action seeks damages for the plaintiff's failure to comply with the agreement and his interference in the negotiations for the sale. The validity of the contract may be in issue in both, but the Bataan case raises other issues, namely the breach by the defendant and the consequent right to the return of possession. The Court cited its earlier ruling that an action to annul a contract of mortgage is not a bar to another action to foreclose the same mortgage. By the same reasoning, the action for damages in Manila cannot bar the action in Bataan.

Doctrine

First, in determining venue, the Court looks to the ultimate purpose or end of the action, not merely to the relief of rescission. Where the complaint alleges breach and prays for rescission and the return of possession of real property, the action is a real action for recovery of possession, and venue lies in the province where the property is situated under Section 3 of Rule 5.

Second, the pendency of another action is a ground to dismiss only where the two actions involve the same parties and the same issues. Where one action seeks recovery of possession and the other seeks damages, the identity of the causes of action is absent, and the second action may proceed.

Disposition

The Supreme Court reversed the order of dismissal, remanded the case to the Court of First Instance of Bataan for further proceedings, and taxed the costs against the defendant.

Remember This

Memorize this line: venue is tested by the ultimate purpose or end of the action, and a prayer for rescission coupled with a demand for the return of possession makes the suit a real action. Examiners use this case to test real versus personal actions for venue, and the requisites of litis pendentia where the two suits seek different reliefs.