PADERANGA vs BUISSAN GR No. 49475, 49475, September 28, 1993 !rst D!v!s!o" Bellosillo, J., Facts: Paderanga and Elumba Industries entered entered into an oral contract of lease for the use of a commercial space within a building owned by Paderanga in Oamis !ity. "he lease was for an inde#nite period. Paderanga subdi$ided subdi$ided the l eased premises into two by constructing a partition wall in between. %e then too& possession of the other half with the ac'uiescence of the manager of Elumba. Elumba then #led an action for damages which at the same time, praying for the #(ing of the period of lease at #$e years, in !FI )now *"!+ of amboanga del -orte based in ipolog !ity. Paderanga, Paderanga, a resident in Oamis !ity, mo$ed for its dismissal contending that the action was a re#$ #%t!o" which #%t!o" which should ha$e been #led with !FI )*"!+ of /Isamis Occidental where the property in 'uestion is situated. •
place where plainti6 or defendant resides at the option of the plainti6.
ISSUE( )*et*er or "ot ve"+e #s proper$- $#! !" t*e /I D!po$o0 /!tE&D( N
•
•
Elumba appears to be confused o$er the di6erence between re#$ #%t!o" #" perso"#$ #%t!o" $is7a$is #%t!o" $is7a$is actions in personam and in rem. *e ormer eterm!"es ve"+e1 ve"+e1 and the latter the binding e6ect of a decision the court may render o$er the party, whether impleaded or not. REA& A/IN
•
*"! *"! 0
•
E-IE /otion to ismis s "he case merely in$ol$ed in$ol$ed the enforcement enforcement of the contract of lease1 there was no 'uestion of ownership raised.
Paderanga, Paderanga, on his motion for reconsideration, contended that while the action did not in$ol$e a 'uestion of ownership, it was ne$ertheless see&ing reco$ery of possession, possession, thus, it was a real action.
*"! *"! 0
E-IE /otion for reconsider ation 2hile admitting that the case pray for reco$ery of possession, such is not the main issue at hand
2hen case reached 3!: PADERANGA Inasmuch Elumba see&s to reco$er possession of the portion of real property, the case should ha$e been #led in the !FI of Oamis !ity. It being a real action, $enue is laid in the court ha$ing 4urisdiction o$er the territory, in which property lies.
E&U'BA "he present action is chie5y for damages arising fron an alleged breach in the lease contract, hence, the issue of reco$ery is merely incidental. "he action is one in personam and not in rem. "herefore $enue $enue may be laid in the
Plainti6 see&s the reco$ery of real property, or an action a6ecting title to real property, or or t*e re%over- o possess!o", possess!o", or for partition, or condemnation or foreclosure of a mortgage 9E-E: R/ *#v!"0 +r!s!%t!o" over t*e terr!tor- !" *!%* s+be%t propert- $!es
PERSNA& A/IN
I N R E'
Plainti6 see&s the reco$ery of personal property, the enforcement of a contract or the reco$ery of damages
8n action against a person on the basis of his personal liability
IN PERSNA ' 8n action against the thing itself, instead of against the person
9E-E: R/ *ere t*e ee"#"t or #"- o t*e ee"#"ts res!es or m#- be o+", or *ere t*e p$#!"t!6 or #"- o t*e p$#!"t!6s res!es
It is undubitable that the action instituted by Elumba against Paderanga a6ects the parties alone, not the whole world. %ence, !t !s #" #%t!o" !" perso"#m. %owe$er, this does not automatically mean that the action
for damages and to #( period of the lease contract is also a personal action. A personal action may not be necessarily be an action in personam and a real action may not be at the same time be an action in rem. )*!$e !t m#- be t*#t !"st#"t %omp$#!"t oes "ot ep$!%!t$- pr#or t*e re%over- o possess!o", s+%* !s t*e "e%ess#r%o"se+e"%e t*ereo . "he instant action therefore does not operate to e6ace the fundamental and prime ob4ecti$e of the nature of the case which is to reco$er the one half portion repossessed by the lessor, herein
petitioner. Indeed, *ere t*e +$t!m#te p+rpose o #" #%t!o" !"vo$ves t!t$e to, or sees re%over- o possess!o", p#rt!t!o" or %o"em"#t!o" o, or ore%$os+re o mort0#0e o" re#$ propert-, s+%* #%t!o" m+st be eeme # re#$ #%t!o" #" m+st peror%e be %omme"%e #" tr!e !" t*e prov!"%e *ere t*e propert- or #"p#rt t*ereo !s s!t+#te. "herefore, *"!, in denying petitioner;s motion to dismiss, gra$ely abused his discretion amounting to lac& or e(cess of 4urisdiction.
