Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
PATRICIA CARONAN-TULIAO,
Plaintiff,
Civil Case No. 6646
-versusFor: ANNULMENT OF
FAUSTA RAMOS - LOPEZ,
BENIGAN RAMOS BUNAGAN,
LORENZA RAMOS,
PETRA
BUCAYU and ISABELO RAMOS,
Defendants.
INSTRUMENT and
CERTIFICATES OF
TITLE WITH DAMAGES
x----------------------------------------------x
DECISION
This decision starts with a statement of the pertinent rules and
applicable jurisprudence in this case.
There are two kinds of actions as to their nature: real actions and
personal actions. The importance of knowing the nature of the action
whether real or personal, is in determining the court which has jurisdiction
over the action and in what court is the proper venue.
Section 1, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court defines real action as one
affecting title to or possession of a real property or interest therein.
Section 2 of the same rule states that all other actions are personal actions.
It most cases when the property in question is a real property, question
of ownership and/or possession is involved and so the action is a real action.
On the other hand, if the case is for the annulment of a contract or its
enforcement, it is generally a personal action. The problem however arises
when the contract sought to be annulled is a deed of sale of a real action,
how is jurisdiction here determined?
Page 2
Decision
Civil Case No. 6646
27 February 2014
x---------------------------x
Page 3
Decision
Civil Case No. 6646
27 February 2014
x---------------------------x
(Torres vs. J.M. Tuazon & Co., Inc., G.R. No. L19668 dated October 22, 1964)
Where the action affects not only the possession of
a real property but also title thereto, it is a real
action.
(Albao vs. J.M. Tuazon & Co., Inc. G.R. No. L16796 dated January 30, 1962)
The complaint seeks to annul deeds of sale
covering two lots and to obtain a declration that
the plaintiff is the owner thereof, the action is a
real action.
(Munoz vs. Llamas, 87 Phil. 737)
Deudor vs. J.M. Tuazon and Co., Inc. (L-20105,
October 31, 1963), the plaintiffs claimed that their
action was for rescission of contract and, therefore,
a personal action. However, it appears that in their
complaint they prayed that the defendants be
ordered to return and give back to the plaintiffs the
ownership and possession over twenty quinines of
land received by the defendants from the plaintiff.
The action was, therefore, a real action.
Where the primary object of the action is to nullity
defendants title to a parcel of land in Pasay City,
with an alternative prayer for a sum of money in
case said title cannot be annulled, the action is a
real action. It was improperly brought in Manila.
(Navarro vs. Lucero, 100 Phil. 147)
Where the plaintiff is primarily interested in
establishing his right to recover possession of the
land from the purchaser thereof for the purpose of
enabling him to gather his share of the crops which
he has planted, his action is a real action.
(Land Tenure Administration vs. Macadaeg, L13280, 107 Phil. 83)
Page 4
Decision
Civil Case No. 6646
27 February 2014
x---------------------------x
II.
Nature of the Action Test
Page 5
Decision
Civil Case No. 6646
27 February 2014
x---------------------------x
Page 6
Decision
Civil Case No. 6646
27 February 2014
x---------------------------x
Page 7
Decision
Civil Case No. 6646
27 February 2014
x---------------------------x
JEZARENE C. AQUINO
Judge