Facts:
On December 28, 1999, respondent Total
Office Products and Services, Inc., (TOPROS) lodged a complaint for annulment
of contracts of loan and real estate mortgage against herein petitioner Antonio
T. Chua before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City.
The said suit sought to annul a loan
contract allegedly extended by petitioner to respondent TOPROS in the amount of
ten million four hundred thousand pesos (P10,400,000) and the accessory real
estate mortgage contract covering two parcels of land situated in Quezon City
as collateral.
TOPROS alleged that the purported loan and
real estate mortgage contracts were fictitious, since it never authorized
anybody, not even its president, to enter into said transaction.
On February 28, 2000, petitioner filed a motion
to dismiss on the ground of improper venue. He contended that the action filed
by TOPROS affects title to or possession of the parcels of land subject of the
real estate mortgage. He argued that it should thus have been filed in the
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City where the encumbered real properties are
located, instead of Pasig City where the parties reside.
On August 9, 2000, Judge Pahimna issued an
order denying the motion to dismiss. She reasoned that the action to annul the
loan and mortgage contracts is a personal action and thus, the venue was
properly laid in the RTC of Pasig City where the parties reside.
Issue:
WHETHER AN ACTION TO ANNUL A LOAN AND
MORTGAGE CONTRACT IS A PERSONAL ACTION?
Rulings:
Yes.
Well-settled
is the rule that an action to annul a contract of loan and its accessory real
estate mortgage is a personal action. In a personal action, the plaintiff seeks
the recovery of personal property, the enforcement of a contract or the
recovery of damages.
The Court pointed out in the Hernandez case
that with respect to mortgage, the rule
on real actions only mentions an action for
foreclosure of a real estate mortgage. It does not include an action for
the cancellation of a real estate mortgage. Exclusio unios est inclusio
alterius. The latter thus falls under the catchall provision on personal
actions under paragraph (b) of the abovecited section, to wit:
SEC. 2 (b) Personal actions. – All
other actions may be commenced and tried where the defendant or any of the
defendants resides or may be found, or where the plaintiff or any of the
plaintiffs resides, at the election of the plaintiff.
In the same vein, the action for annulment
of a real estate mortgage in the present case must fall under Section 2 of
Rule 4, to wit:
SEC. 2. Venue of personal actions. –
All other actions may be commenced and tried where the plaintiff or any of the
principal plaintiffs resides, or where the defendant or any of the principal
defendants resides, or in the case of a nonresident defendant where he may be
found, at the election of the plaintiff.
Thus, Pasig City, where the parties reside,
is the proper venue of the action to nullify the subject loan and real estate
mortgage contracts.
