Dela Cruz v Concepcion (Civil Procedure)

Digest # 1

Dela Cruz v Concepcion
GR No. 172825, October 11, 2012

FACTS:

On March 25, 1996, petitioners entered into a Contract to Sell with respondent involving a house and lot in Antipolo City for a 2 million consideration.

Respondent made the following payments, to wit:
(1) 500,000 by way of downpayment;
(2) 500,000 on May 30, 1996;
(3) 500,000 paid on January 22, 1997; and
(4) 500,000 bounced check dated June 30, 1997 which was replaced.
Thus, Respondent was able to pay the 2 million total obligation.

Before respondent issued the 500,000 replacement check, she told petitioners that based on the computation of her accountant as of July 6, 1997, her unpaid obligation which includes interests and penalties was only 200,000. Petitioners agreed with respondent. Despite repeated demands, petitioners failed to collect the amounts they claimed. Hence, the complaint for sum of money with damages filed with the RTC of Antipolo Rizal. In her answer with Compulsory counterclaim and during the presentation of evidence, respondent presented a receipt purportedly indicating payment of the remaining balance of 200,000 to Losloso who allegedly received the same on behalf of petitioners.

On March 8, 2014, the RTC rendered a decision in favor of respondent. On appeal, the CA affirmed the decision with modification by deleting the award of moral damages and attorney's fees in favor of respondent. Aggrieved, petitioners come before the Court in this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.

ISSUE:
Whether it was proper to dismiss the complaint based on the ground that the defendant fully paid the claims of plaintiff

HELD:
Yes.

When the issue is tried without the objection of the parties, it should be treated with all respects as if it had been raised in the pleadings. On the other hand, when there is an objection, the evidence may be admitted where its admission will not prejudice him.

Thus, while respondent judicially admitted in her answer that she only paid 2 million and that she still owed petitioners 200,000, respondent claimed later and in fact, submitted an evidence to show that she already paid the whole amount of her unpaid obligation. It is noteworthy what when respondent presented evidence of payment, petitioners did not object thereto.

To be sure, petitioners were given ample opportunity to refute the fact of and present evidence to prove payment.

Digest # 2

Local and Transitory Actions

Cayetano De La Cruz v. El Seminario De La Cruz Archdiocese of Manila, et. al.

Facts:

·       Petitioner is a member and the President of Methodist Episcopal religious association in Dinalupijan, Bataan;

·       The said religious association, through Petitioner, entered into a lease with Respondent, through its agent, J.C. Miller;

·       The purpose of the lease was for the association to construct a chapel thereon; the lease was for two years;

·       Just when the chapel was completed, an action for forcible entry and unlawful detainer was filed by respondent in the Justice of the Peace of Dinalupijan;

·       Consequently, Judgment was rendered against Petitioners;

·       Since no appeal was taken and the judgment becoming final, it was executed in a manner that the chapel was completely destroyed;

·       Subsequent thereto, Petitioner commenced an action in the CFI of Manila against the appellants to recover the sum of P2,000.00 as damages for a breach of the rental contract;

·       Respondents filed a demurrer based on the ground that the City of Manila was without jurisdiction for the reason that damages for injuries caused to real property situated in the Province of Bataan is sought to be recovered; therefore, Bataan should have jurisdiction;

Lower court decisions:

CFI of Manila: Overruled the demurrer and rendered judgment in favor of Petitioner

*Respondents moved for new trial but such motion was overruled

Issue: WON the demurrer was improperly overruled because the CFI of Manila has no jurisdiction

Ruling: No, the demurrer was properly overruled.

This is not an action to recover damages to real estate; it is an action for breach of covenant in a lease. The fact that the damage to real estate are involved, as an incident to the breach of contract, does not change the character of the action. Such an action is personal and transitory.

If the action is founded on the privity of contract between the parties, the action is transitory whether it is a debt or a covenant. But if there is no privity of contract and the action is founded on privity of estate only, such a covenant runs with the land in the hands of the remote grantees, then the action is local and must be brought in the county wherein the land lies.

In an action on a covenant contained in a lease, whether begun by the lessor against the lessee, or the lessee against the lessor, the action is transitory because it is founded on a mere privity of contract.

In general also, actions which are founded upon contracts are transitory. In an action upon a lease for nonpayment of rent or other breach of covenants, when the action is founded on the privity of contract, it is transitory and the venue may be laid in any county.

Therefore, respondents’ basis that section 377 of the Code of Civil Procedure applies, which provides among others, that actions to recover damages for injuries to real estate shall be brought in the province where the land, or a part thereof, is situated, is not tenable.