GENEROSA ALMEDA LATORRE, Petitioner, v. LUIS ESTEBAN LATORRE, Respondent.

RESOLUTION
NACHURA, J.:
Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari
1
under Rule 45, in relation to Rule 41, of the Rules of Civil Procedure,
assailing the decision
2
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of untinlu!a Cit", Branch 25#, dated $!ril 2%, 2&&'.
The facts of the case are as follows(
)n *cto+er 2&&&, !etitioner ,enerosa $l-eda .atorre (!etitioner) filed +efore the RTC of untinlu!a Cit" a Co-!laint
/
for
Collection and 0eclaration of 1ullit" of 0eed of $+solute 2ale with a!!lication for )n3unction against her own son, herein
res!ondent .uis 4ste+an .atorre (res!ondent), and one )f5al $li ()f5al).
Petitioner averred that, on 2e!te-+er 2', 1%%%, res!ondent and )f5al entered into a Contract of .ease
4
over a 1,2446
s7uare -eter real !ro!ert", situated at 1o. 1/## Ca+allero 2t., 0as-ari8as 9illage, a:ati Cit" (su+3ect !ro!ert"). ;nder
the said contract, res!ondent, as lessor, declared that he was the a+solute and registered owner of the su+3ect !ro!ert".
Petitioner alleged that res!ondent<s declaration therein was erroneous +ecause she and res!ondent were co6owners of the
su+3ect !ro!ert" in e7ual shares
Petitioner narrated that, on arch 14, 1%'%, she and res!ondent e=ecuted their res!ective 0eeds of 0onation, conve"ing
the su+3ect !ro!ert" in favor of The Porfirio 0. .atorre e-orial > ?r. .uis 4ste+an .atorre ?oundation, )nc. (the
?oundation). Thus, Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) 1o. 1#1%#/
5
was issued in the na-e of the ?oundation. 2u+se7uentl",
on 2e!te-+er 2, 1%%4, !etitioner and res!ondent e=ecuted se!arate 0eeds of Revocation of 0onation and Reconve"ance
of the su+3ect !ro!ert", consented to +" the ?oundation, through the issuance of a!!ro!riate cor!orate resolutions.
@owever, the 0eeds of Revocation were not registeredA hence, the su+3ect !ro!ert" re-ained in the na-e of the
?oundation. Petitioner insisted, however, that res!ondent was full" aware that the su+3ect !ro!ert" was owned in co--on
+" +oth of the-. To !rotect her rights as co6owner, !etitioner for-all" de-anded fro- )f5al the !a"-ent of her share of
the rentals, which the latter, however, refused to heed.
oreover, !etitioner averred that, on or a+out $ugust 1#, 2&&&, she discovered that res!ondent caused the annotation of
an adverse clai- on the TCT of the su+3ect !ro!ert", clai-ing full ownershi! over the sa-e +" virtue of a 0eed of $+solute
2ale
#
dated arch 21, 2&&&, allegedl" e=ecuted +" !etitioner in favor of res!ondent. Petitioner clai-ed that the deed was a
falsified docu-entA that her signature thereon was forged +" res!ondentA and that she never received P21 illion or an"
other a-ount as consideration for her share of the su+3ect !ro!ert". Thus, !etitioner !ra"ed that )f5al +e en3oined fro-
!a"ing the rentals to res!ondent, and the latter fro- receiving said rentalsA that +oth )f5al and res!ondent +e ordered to
!a" !etitioner her share of the rentalsA and that res!ondent +e en3oined fro- asserting full ownershi! over the su+3ect
!ro!ert" and fro- co--itting an" other act in derogation of !etitioner<s interests therein. Petitioner also !ra"ed for the
!a"-ent of -oral and e=e-!lar" da-ages, litigation e=!enses, and costs of the suit.
Res!ondent i--ediatel" filed a otion to 0is-iss
B
on the sole ground that the venue of the case was i-!ro!erl" laid. @e
stressed that while the co-!laint was deno-inated as one for Collection and 0eclaration of 1ullit" of 0eed of $+solute 2ale
with a!!lication for )n3unction, in truth the case was a real action affecting title to and interest over the su+3ect !ro!ert".
Res!ondent insisted that all of !etitioner<s clai-s were anchored on her clai- of ownershi! over one6half (C) !ortion of the
su+3ect !ro!ert". 2ince the su+3ect !ro!ert" is located in a:ati Cit", res!ondent argued that !etitioner should have filed
the case +efore the RTC of a:ati Cit" and not of untinlu!a Cit".
)f5al also filed his -otion to dis-iss on the ground of want of 3urisdiction, asserting that he was i--une fro- suit +ecause
he was an officer of the $sian 0evelo!-ent Ban:, an international organi5ation
The RTC issued a Te-!orar" Restraining *rder dated 1ove-+er #, 2&&&, restraining )f5al fro- !a"ing his rentals to
res!ondent and en3oining the latter fro- receiving fro- the for-er the aforesaid rentals. The RTC also directed +oth )f5al
and res!ondent to !a" !etitioner her share of the rentals, with the corres!onding order against res!ondent not to co--it
an" act in derogation of !etitioner<s interest over the su+3ect !ro!ert".
)n its *rder dated Danuar" 2, 2&&1, the RTC denied res!ondent<s -otion to dis-iss. The RTC ruled that the nature of an
action whether real or !ersonal was deter-ined +" the allegations in the co-!laint, irres!ective of whether or not the
!laintiff was entitled to recover u!on the clai-s asserted 6 a -atter resolved onl" after, and as a result of, a trial. Thus,
trial on the -erits ensued.
;ndaunted, res!ondent filed an $nswer Ad Cautelam
'
dated arch 1%, 2&&1, insisting, a-ong others, that the case was a
real action and that the venue was i-!ro!erl" laid.
%
Res!ondent narrated that he was a for-er *!us 0ei !riest +ut he left
the congregation in 1%'B after he was -altreated +" his 2!anish su!eriors. Res!ondent alleged that !etitioner lived with
hi- and his fa-il" fro- 1%'' to 2&&&, and that he !rovided for !etitioner<s needs. Res!ondent also alleged that, for
al-ost 2& "ears, the *!us 0ei divested the .atorre fa-il" of several real !ro!erties. Thus, in order to s!are the su+3ect
!ro!ert" fro- the *!us 0ei, +oth !etitioner and res!ondent agreed to donate it to the ?oundation. )n 1%%4, when
res!ondent got -arried and sired a son, +oth !etitioner and res!ondent decided to revo:e the said donation. The
?oundation consented to the revocation. @owever, due to lac: of funds, the title was never transferred +ut re-ained in the
na-e of the ?oundation.
Res!ondent asseverated that he and his wife too: good care of !etitioner and that the" !rovided for her needs, s!ending a
su+stantial a-ount of -one" for these needsA that +ecause of this, and the fact that the rentals !aid for the use of the
su+3ect !ro!ert" went to !etitioner, +oth !arties agreed that !etitioner would conve" her share over the su+3ect !ro!ert" to
res!ondentA and that, on arch 21, 2&&&, !etitioner e=ecuted a 0eed of $+solute 2ale in favor of res!ondent.
Res!ondent further alleged that so-eti-e in arch to a" 2&&&, the relationshi! of the !arties, as -other and son,
deteriorated. Petitioner left res!ondent<s house +ecause he and his wife allegedl" ignored, disres!ected, and insulted
her.
1&
Res!ondent clai-ed, however, that !etitioner left +ecause she detested his act of firing their driver.
11
)t was then that
this case was filed against hi- +" !etitioner
)n the -eanti-e, in its *rder dated a" 15, 2&&/, the RTC dis-issed !etitioner<s clai- against )f5al +ecause the dis!ute
was clearl" +etween !etitioner and res!ondent
*n $!ril 2%, 2&&', the RTC ruled in favor of res!ondent, dis!osing of the case in this wise(
Ehile the case herein filed +" the !laintiff involves recover" of !ossession of a real !ro!ert" situated at 1/## Ca+allero 2t.,
0as-ari8as 9illage, a:ati Cit", the sa-e should have +een filed and tried in the Regional Trial Court of a:ati Cit" who,
undou+tedl", has 3urisdiction to hear the -atter as afore-entioned the sa-e +eing clearl" a real action.
E@4R4?*R4, in view of the foregoing, the a+ove6entitled case is here+" 0)2)2240 for want of 3urisdiction, all in
!ursuance to the a+ove6cited 3uris!rudence and Rule 4 of the Rules of Court.
2* *R04R40.
12
$ggrieved, !etitioner filed her otion for Reconsideration,
1/
which the RTC denied in its *rder
14
dated Dul" 24, 2&&' for lac:
of -erit.
@ence, this Petition, clai-ing that the RTC erred in treating the venue as 3urisdiction and in treating !etitioner<s co-!laint
as a real action
Ehile the instant case was !ending resolution +efore this Court, !etitioner !assed awa" on 1ove-+er 14, 2&&%. Thus,
!etitioner<s counsel !ra"ed that, !ending the a!!oint-ent of a re!resentative of !etitioner<s estate, notices of the
!roceedings herein +e sent to !etitioner<s other son, ?ather Ro+erto $. .atorre.
15
$s earl" as the filing of the co-!laint, this case had +een -arred +" nu-erous !rocedural infractions co--itted +"
!etitioner, +" res!ondent, and even +" the RTC, all of which cannot +e disregarded +" this Court.
First. Petitioner filed her co-!laint with the RTC of untinlu!a Cit" instead of the RTC of a:ati Cit", the latter +eing the
!ro!er venue in this case
2ections 1 and 2, Rule 4 of the 1%%B Rules of Civil Procedure !rovide an answer to the issue of venue.
1#
$ctions affecting
title to or !ossession of real !ro!ert" or an interest therein (real actions) shall +e co--enced and tried in the !ro!er court
that has territorial 3urisdiction over the area where the real !ro!ert" is situated. *n the other hand, all other actions
(!ersonal actions) shall +e co--enced and tried in the !ro!er courts where the !laintiff or an" of the !rinci!al !laintiffs
resides or where the defendant or an" of the !rinci!al defendants resides.
1B
The action in the RTC, other than for
Collection, was for the 0eclaration of 1ullit" of the 0eed of $+solute 2ale involving the su+3ect !ro!ert", which is located at
1o. 1/## Ca+allero 2t., 0as-ari8as 9illage, a:ati Cit". The venue for such action is un7uestiona+l" the !ro!er court of
a:ati Cit", where the real !ro!ert" or !art thereof lies, not the RTC of untinlu!a Cit".
1'
)n this 3urisdiction, we adhere to the !rinci!le that the nature of an action is deter-ined +" the allegations in the Co-!laint
itself, rather than +" its title or heading.
1%
)t is also a settled rule that what deter-ines the venue of a case is the !ri-ar"
o+3ective for the filing of the case.
2&
)n her Co-!laint, !etitioner sought the nullification of the 0eed of $+solute 2ale on
the strength of two +asic clai-s that (1) she did not e=ecute the deed in favor of res!ondentA and (2) thus, she still owned
one half (C) of the su+3ect !ro!ert". )ndu+ita+l", !etitioner<s co-!laint is a real action involving the recover" of the
su+3ect !ro!ert" on the +asis of her co6ownershi! thereof
Second. The RTC also co--itted a !rocedural +lunder when it denied res!ondent<s -otion to dis-iss on the ground of
i-!ro!er venue.
The RTC insisted that trial on the -erits +e conducted even when it was awfull" glaring that the venue was i-!ro!erl" laid,
as !ointed out +" res!ondent in his -otion to dis-iss. $fter trial, the RTC eventuall" dis-issed the case on the ground of
lac: of 3urisdiction, even as it invo:ed, as 3ustification, the rules and 3uris!rudence on venue. 0es!ite the conduct of trial,
the RTC failed to ad3udicate this case on the -erits
Third. Res!ondent also did not do ver" well, !rocedurall". Ehen the RTC denied his otion to 0is-iss, res!ondent could
have filed a !etition for certiorari andFor !rohi+ition inas-uch as the denial of the -otion was done without 3urisdiction or
in e=cess of 3urisdiction or with grave a+use of discretion a-ounting to lac: of 3urisdiction.
21
@owever, des!ite this la!se, it
is clear that res!ondent did not waive his o+3ections to the fact of i-!ro!er venue, contrar" to !etitioner<s assertion.
1ota+l", after his -otion to dis-iss was denied, res!ondent filed a otion for Reconsideration to contest such denial. 4ven
in his $nswer Ad Cautelam, res!ondent stood his ground that the case ought to +e dis-issed on the +asis of i-!ro!er
venue
?inall", !etitioner ca-e directl" to this Court on a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, in relation to Rule 41, of
the Rules of Civil Procedure on alleged !ure 7uestions of law. )n Murillo v. Consul,
22
we laid down a doctrine that was later
ado!ted +" the 1%%B Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. )n that case, this Court had the occasion to clarif" the three (/)
-odes of a!!eal fro- decisions of the RTC, na-el"( (1) ordinar" a!!eal or a!!eal +" writ of error, where 3udg-ent was
rendered in a civil or cri-inal action +" the RTC in the e=ercise of its original 3urisdictionA (2) !etition for review, where
3udg-ent was rendered +" the RTC in the e=ercise of its a!!ellate 3urisdictionA and (/) !etition for review to the 2u!re-e
Court.
The first -ode of a!!eal, governed +" Rule 41, is +rought to the Court of $!!eals (C$) on 7uestions of fact or -i=ed
7uestions of fact and law. The second -ode of a!!eal, covered +" Rule 42, is +rought to the C$ on 7uestions of fact, of
law, or -i=ed 7uestions of fact and law. The third -ode of a!!eal, !rovided in Rule 45, is filed with the 2u!re-e Court
onl" on 7uestions of law
$ 7uestion of law arises when there is dou+t as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, while there is a 7uestion of
fact when the dou+t arises as to the truth or falsit" of the alleged facts.
2/
*ur ruling in Velayo-Fong v. Velayo
24
is
instructive(
$ 7uestion of law arises when there is dou+t as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, while there is a 7uestion of
fact when the dou+t arises as to the truth or falsit" of the alleged facts. ?or a 7uestion to +e one of law, the sa-e -ust not
involve an e=a-ination of the !ro+ative value of the evidence !resented +" the litigants or an" of the-. The resolution of
the issue -ust rest solel" on what the law !rovides on the given set of circu-stances. *nce it is clear that the issue invites
a review of the evidence !resented, the 7uestion !osed is one of fact. Thus, the test of whether a 7uestion is one of law or
of fact is not the a!!ellation given to such 7uestion +" the !art" raising the sa-eA rather, it is whether the a!!ellate court
can deter-ine the issue raised without reviewing or evaluating the evidence, in which case, it is a 7uestion of lawA
otherwise it is a 7uestion of fact.
25
)n her Re!l" to res!ondent<s Co--ent,
2#
!etitioner !ra"ed that this Court decide the case on the -erits. To do so,
however, would re7uire the e=a-ination +" this Court of the !ro+ative value of the evidence !resented, ta:ing into account
the fact that the RTC failed to ad3udicate this controvers" on the -erits. This, unfortunatel", we cannot do. )t thus
+eco-es e=ceedingl" clear that the filing of the case directl" with this Court ran afoul of the doctrine of hierarch" of courts.
Pursuant to this doctrine, direct resort fro- the lower courts to the 2u!re-e Court will not +e entertained unless the
a!!ro!riate re-ed" sought cannot +e o+tained in the lower tri+unals. This Court is a court of last resort, and -ust so
re-ain if it is to satisfactoril" !erfor- the functions assigned to it +" the Constitution and +" i--e-orial tradition.
2B
$ccordingl", we find no -erit in the instant !etition. 1either do we find an" reversi+le error in the trial court<s dis-issal of
the case ostensi+l" for want of 3urisdiction, although the trial court o+viousl" -eant to dis-iss the case on the ground of
i-!ro!er venue.