LTD Cases Reviewer

Sec. A-2 2 Case Title / Issue Latorre vs Latorre (2010) Nachura, J. 3rd Division 5 Justices concurring (WON the venue is improper) Facts The case involves recovery of real property located in Makati on the basis of petitioners co-ownership. Petitioner and respondent are mother and son. Petitioner and respondent executed a donation of said property in favor of a foundation. After some time, they separately executed Deeds of Revocation of Donation and Reconveyance of property to which the foundation consented but the title was never transferred. The property was leased to Izbal (ADB Ee), rent went exclusively to Respondent Petitioner claimed that she should be entitled to rents since she is a co-owner. The case was filed in Mandaluyong (the property is in Makati) RTC in Mandaluyong tried the case, but subsequently ruled in favor of respondent for lack of jurisdiction. Ruling/Ratio As to venue, Rule: Actions affecting title to or possession of real property or an interest therein (real actions) shall be commenced and tried in the proper court that has territorial jurisdiction over the area where the real property is situated. (Sec. 1 and 2, Rule 4, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure) - Case Fact: Case tried in Mandaluyong, property is in Makati - Conclusion: Improper venue As to nature of action, Rule: The nature of an action is determined by the allegations in the Complaint itself, rather than by its title or heading. As to venue, Rule: What determines the venue of a case is the primary objective for the filing of the case - Case fact: ownership of a property - Conclusion: Real action, location of the property is controlling, i.e., petitioner's complaint is a real action involving the recovery of the subject property on the basis of her co-ownership thereof. Obiter: The RTC should not have tried the case, it should have dismissed it early on for improper venue.