Paderanga v Buissan (Civil Procedure)

Jorge Paderanga v. Judge Buissan, CFI of Zamboanga and ELUMBA Industries Company

Facts:

·       Petitioner and private respondent entered into an oral contract of lease for the use of a commercial space within a building owned by petitioner in Ozamiz City;

·       Petitioner subdivided the leased premises into 2 by constructing a party wall in between; petitioner alleged that it is with the acquiescence of respondent but the same is refuted by the respondent;

·       Private respondent instituted an action for damages and at the same time prayed for the fixing of the period of lease at 5 years in the CFI of Zamboanga, Dipolog City;

·       Petitioner, resident of Ozamiz City, moved for its dismissal contending that the action was a real action which should have been filed with the CFI of Ozamiz City where the property questioned is located;

Lower court decisions:

CFI of Dipolog City: denied the motion to dismiss as the case merely involved the enforcement of the contract of lease, and while affecting a portion of real property, there was no question of ownership raised. Hence, venue was properly laid.

*When case reached the SC:

Petitioner – in as much as it is a recovery of possession of a portion of real property, the case should have been filed in the CFI of Ozamiz City, where the said real property lies;

Respondent – the action is chiefly for damages arising from an alleged breach of lease of contract; hence, the issue of recovery of possession is merely incidental. The action is one in personam and not in rem. Therefore venue must be laid in the place where plaintiff or defendant resides at the option of plaintiff.

Issue: WON venue was properly laid in the CFI of Dipolog City

Ruling: No, the venue was improperly laid.

Private respondent appears to be confused over the difference between real action and personal action vis-à-vis actions in personam and in rem.

The former determines venue; and the latter the binding effect of a decision the court may render over the party, whether impleaded or not;

(Reiterated the usual definitions of Real Actions and Personal Action vis-à-vis action in personam and action in rem)

While it may be that the instant complaint does not explicitly pray for recovery of possession, such is the necessary consequence thereof.

The instant petition does not efface the fundamental and prime objective of the nature of the case which is to recover the one-half portion repossessed by the lessor, herein petitioner.