Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 306 views

    Emergency Loan Pawnshop vs. CA 353 Scra 89

    Uploaded by

    albemart
    The Supreme Court denied the petitioners' attempt to set aside the Court of Appeals decision granting the respondent's petition for certiorari. The Court of Appeals found that the regional trial court committed a grave abuse of discretion in denying the respondent's motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds of improper venue. The Supreme Court affirmed this, noting that while an order denying a motion to dismiss is generally interlocutory, certiorari may be appropriate if there was a grave abuse of discretion or if appeal would not provide an adequate remedy. The Court also found that venue was clearly improper as the case involved a land title dispute over a property located in an area outside the regional trial court's jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Emergency Loan Pawnshop vs. CA 353 Scra 89

    Uploaded by

    albemart
    306 views7 pages
    The Supreme Court denied the petitioners' attempt to set aside the Court of Appeals decision granting the respondent's petition for certiorari. The Court of Appeals found that the regional trial court committed a grave abuse of discretion in denying the respondent's motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds of improper venue. The Supreme Court affirmed this, noting that while an order denying a motion to dismiss is generally interlocutory, certiorari may be appropriate if there was a grave abuse of discretion or if appeal would not provide an adequate remedy. The Court also found that venue was clearly improper as the case involved a land title dispute over a property located in an area outside the regional trial court's jurisdiction.

    Original Description:

    Effect of Stipulations of Venue

    Original Title

    11. Emergency Loan Pawnshop vs. CA 353 Scra 89

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court denied the petitioners' attempt to set aside the Court of Appeals decision granting the respondent's petition for certiorari. The Court of Appeals found that the regional trial court committed a grave abuse of discretion in denying the respondent's motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds of improper venue. The Supreme Court affirmed this, noting that while an order denying a motion to dismiss is generally interlocutory, certiorari may be appropriate if there was a grave abuse of discretion or if appeal would not provide an adequate remedy. The Court also found that venue was clearly improper as the case involved a land title dispute over a property located in an area outside the regional trial court's jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    306 views7 pages

    Emergency Loan Pawnshop vs. CA 353 Scra 89

    Uploaded by

    albemart
    The Supreme Court denied the petitioners' attempt to set aside the Court of Appeals decision granting the respondent's petition for certiorari. The Court of Appeals found that the regional trial court committed a grave abuse of discretion in denying the respondent's motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds of improper venue. The Supreme Court affirmed this, noting that while an order denying a motion to dismiss is generally interlocutory, certiorari may be appropriate if there was a grave abuse of discretion or if appeal would not provide an adequate remedy. The Court also found that venue was clearly improper as the case involved a land title dispute over a property located in an area outside the regional trial court's jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 7

    1.

    Emergency Loan Pawnshop Incorporated vs. Court of Appeals, 353


    SCRA 89 , February 28, 2001
    Case Title : EMERGENCY LOAN PAWNSHOP INCORPORATED and DANILO R.
    NAPALA, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS (Tenth Division) and
    TRADERS ROYAL BANK, respondents.Case Nature : PETITION for review on
    certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals.
    Syllabi Class : Civil Procedure|Certiorari|Appeal|Actions|Venue
    Syllabi:
    1. Civil Procedure; Certiorari; Appeal; Denial of a motion to dismiss a
    complaint is an interlocutory order and, hence, cannot be appealed or
    questioned via a special civil action of certiorari until a final judgment on the
    merits of the case is rendered; Certain situations where recourse to
    certiorari or mandamus is considered appropriate. +
    2. Civil Procedure; Actions; Venue; An action affecting title to real
    property, or for recovery of, or foreclosure of mortgage on real property,
    shall be commenced and tried in the proper court having jurisdiction over
    the area where the real property or any part thereof lies.+

    Division: FIRST DIVISION

    Docket Number: G.R. No. 129184

    Counsel: Rodolfo B. Taasan, Angelita A. Alfonso-Tumanda, Gerardo C.


    Olaguer

    Ponente: PARDO

    Dispositive Portion:
    WHEREFORE, the Court denies the petition and affirms the decision of the
    Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 43095, in toto.

    Citation Ref:
    316 SCRA 326 | 226 SCRA 786 | 277 SCRA 518 | 178 SCRA 564 | 341 SCRA
    485 | 274 SCRA 439 | 341 SCRA 485 |

    VOL. 353, FEBRUARY 28, 2001


    89
    Emergency Loan Pawnshop Incorporated vs. Court of Appeals
    G.R. No. 129184. February 28, 2001.*
    EMERGENCY LOAN PAWNSHOP INCORPORATED and DANILO R. NAPALA, petitioners,
    vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS (Tenth Division) and TRADERS ROYAL BANK,
    respondents.
    Civil Procedure; Certiorari; Appeal; Denial of a motion to dismiss a complaint is an
    interlocutory order and, hence, cannot be appealed or questioned via a special civil
    action of certiorari until a final judgment on the merits of the case is rendered;
    Certain situations where recourse to certiorari or mandamus is considered
    appropriate.The general rule is that the denial of a motion to dismiss a complaint
    is an interlocutory order and, hence, cannot be appealed or questioned via a special
    civil action of certiorari until a final judgment on the merits of the case is rendered.
    The remedy of the aggrieved party is to file an answer to the complaint and to
    interpose as defenses the objections raised in his motion to dismiss, proceed to
    trial, and in case of an adverse decision, to elevate the entire case by appeal in due
    course. However, the rule is not ironclad. Under certain situations, recourse to
    certiorari or mandamus is considered appropriate, that is, (a) when the trial court
    issued the order without or in excess of jurisdiction; (b) where there is patent grave
    abuse of discretion by the trial court; or, (c) appeal would not prove to be a speedy
    and adequate remedy as when an appeal would not promptly relieve a defendant
    from the injurious effects of the patently mistaken order maintaining the plaintiffs
    baseless action and compelling the defendant needlessly to go through a protracted
    trial and clogging the court dockets by another futile case.
    Same; Actions; Venue; An action affecting title to real property, or for recovery of, or
    foreclosure of mortgage on real property, shall be commenced and tried in the
    proper court having jurisdiction over the area where the real property or any part
    thereof lies.The motion of respondent TRB was well founded because venue was
    clearly improperly laid. The action in the Regional Trial Court was for annulment of
    sale involving a parcel of land located at Km. 3 Asin Road, Baguio City. The venue of
    such action is unquestionably within the territorial jurisdiction of the proper court
    where the real property or part thereof lies. An action affecting title to real property,
    or for recovery of, or foreclosure of mortgage on real property, shall be commenced
    and tried in the proper court having jurisdiction over the area where the real
    property or any part thereof lies.
    _______________

    * FIRST DIVISION.
    90

    90
    SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
    Emergency Loan Pawnshop Incorporated vs. Court of Appeals
    PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals.
    The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
    Rodolfo B. Taasan for petitioners.
    Angelita A. Alfonso-Tumanda collaborating counsel for petitioners.
    Gerardo C. Olaguer for private respondent.
    PARDO, J.:

    May an appeal be taken from a decision of the Regional Trial Court denying a motion
    to dismiss the complaint on the ground of improper venue? If not, will certiorari lie?
    The case before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the decision
    of the Court of Appeals,1 granting respondents petition for certiorari and dismissing
    the complaint below on the ground of improper venue.
    On January 18, 1996, Traders Royal Bank (TRB for brevity) sold in favor of petitioner
    Emergency Loan Pawnshop Incorporated (ELPI for brevity) a parcel of land located
    at Km. 3 Asin, Baguio City for Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00).2
    At the time of the sale, TRB misrepresented to ELPI that the subject property was a
    vacant residential lot valued at P600.00 to P800.00 per square meter, with a usable
    land area of 1,143.75 square meters (approximately 75% of the land area of 1,525
    sq.m.) without any illegal occupants or squatters, when it truth the subject property
    was dominantly a public road with only 140 square meters usable area.
    ELPI, after having spent to fully ascertain the actual condition of the property,
    demanded from TRB the rescission and cancella-
    _______________

    1 In CA-G.R. SP No. 43095, promulgated on March 11, 1997, Alio-Hormachuelos, J.,


    ponente, Gonzaga-Reyes and Mabutas, Jr., JJ. concurring. Petition, Annex A, Rollo,
    pp. 18-22.
    2 Petition, Annex C [Annex A] Deed of Absolute Sale, Rollo, pp. 28-30.
    91

    VOL. 353, FEBRUARY 28, 2001


    91
    Emergency Loan Pawnshop Incorporated vs. Court of Appeals
    tion of the sale of the property. TRB refused, hence, on April 16, 1996, ELPI filed with
    the Regional Trial Court, Davao, Branch 17, a complaint for annulment of sale and
    damages against TRB.3
    On August 27, 1996, TRB filed a Motion to Dismiss4 the complaint on the ground of
    improper venue. On September 18, 1996 the trial court denied the motion to
    dismiss.5 On October 21, 1996, TRB filed a motion for reconsideration.6 On
    November 14, 1996, the trial court denied the motion.7
    On January 15, 1997, TRB elevated the case to the Court of Appeals by petition for
    certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order,
    contending that the trial court committed a grave abuse of discretion in denying its
    motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of improper venue.8
    After due proceedings, on March 11, 1997, the Court of Appeals promulgated its
    decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:
    WHEREFORE, finding merit, in the petition, the Orders dated September 18, 1996
    and November 14, 1996 are hereby ANNULED and SET ASIDE and Civil Case No.
    24,317-96 is hereby DISMISSED on ground of improper venue.9
    Hence, this petition.10
    Petitioners seek to set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals alleging that:
    _______________

    3 Docketed as Civil Case No. 24,317-96. Petition, Annex C, Rollo, pp. 23-27.
    4 Petition, Annex D, Rollo, pp. 33-34.
    5 Petition, Annex E, Rollo, p. 35. Judge Renato A. Fuentes, presiding.
    6 Petition, Annex F, Rollo, pp. 36-39.
    7 Petition, Annex G, Rollo, pp. 41-42.
    8 Docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 43095, Petition, CA Rollo, pp. 5-18.
    9 Petition, Annex A, Rollo, pp. 18-20. Alio-Hormachuelos, J., ponente, Gonzaga-
    Reyes and Mabutas, Jr., JJ., concurring.
    10 Petition filed by registered mail posted on May 13, 1997, Rollo, pp. 5-17.
    92

    92
    SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
    Emergency Loan Pawnshop Incorporated vs. Court of Appeals
    1. The Court of Appeals erred in entertaining the petition for certiorari and
    prohibition, for lack of jurisdiction;
    2. The Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the Regional Trial Court erred in not
    dismissing the complaint for improper venue.11
    According to petitioners, the determination of whether the venue of an action was
    improperly laid was a question of law, thus, the Court of Appeals had no jurisdiction
    to entertain the petition for certiorari and prohibition, which involved pure questions
    of law.
    Petitioners further alleged that an order denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory
    in nature that can not be the subject of an appeal and can not be even reviewed by
    a special civil action for certiorari.
    We find the petition not meritorious.
    The general rule is that the denial of a motion to dismiss a complaint is an
    interlocutory order and, hence, cannot be appealed or questioned via a special civil
    action of certiorari until a final judgment on the merits of the case is rendered.12
    The remedy of the aggrieved party is to file an answer to the complaint and to
    interpose as defenses the objections raised in his motion to dismiss, proceed to
    trial, and in case of an adverse decision, to elevate the entire case by appeal in due
    course. However, the rule is not ironclad. Under certain situations, recourse to
    certiorari or mandamus is considered appropriate, that is, (a) when the trial court
    issued the order without or in excess of jurisdiction; (b) where there is patent grave
    abuse of discretion by the trial court; or, (c) appeal would not prove to be a speedy
    and adequate remedy as when an appeal would not promptly relieve a defendant
    from the injurious effects of the patently mistaken order maintaining the plaintiffs
    baseless action and compelling the defendant
    _______________

    11 Petition, Rollo, p. 9.
    12 Gonzales v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 112876, June 8, 2000, 277 SCRA 518.
    93

    VOL. 353, FEBRUARY 28, 2001


    93
    Emergency Loan Pawnshop Incorporated vs. Court of Appeals
    needlessly to go through a protracted trial and clogging the court dockets by
    another futile case.13
    In the case at bar, we agree with the Court of Appeals that the trial court erred
    grievously amounting to ousting itself of jurisdiction. The motion of respondent TRB
    was well founded because venue was clearly improperly laid. The action in the
    Regional Trial Court was for annulment of sale involving a parcel of land located at
    Km. 3 Asin Road, Baguio City. The venue of such action is unquestionably within the
    territorial jurisdiction of the proper court where the real property or part thereof
    lies.14 An action affecting title to real property, or for recovery of, or foreclosure of
    mortgage on real property, shall be commenced and tried in the proper court
    having jurisdiction over the area where the real property or any part thereof lies.15
    Hence, the case at bar clearly falls within the exceptions to the rule. The Regional
    Trial Court has committed a palpable and grievous error amounting to lack or excess
    of jurisdiction in denying the motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of
    improper venue.
    WHEREFORE, the Court denies the petition and affirms the decision of the Court of
    Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 43095, in toto.
    No costs.
    SO ORDERED.
    Davide, Jr. (C.J., Chairman), Puno, Kapunan and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.
    Petition denied, judgment affirmed.
    _______________

    13 Far East Bank and Trust Company v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 135548,
    September 29, 2000, 341 SCRA 485, citing cases.
    14 Rule 4, Section 1, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended. Paderanga v.
    Buissan, 226 SCRA 786 [1993].
    15 Fortune Motors (Phils.), Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 178 SCRA 564 [1989];
    Commodities Storage and Ice Plant Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 340 Phil. 551;
    274 SCRA 439 [1997].
    94

    94
    SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
    De Rama vs. Court of Appeals
    Note.An objection to an improper venue must be made before a responsive
    pleading is filed, otherwise, it will be deemed waived. (Fernandez vs. International
    Corporation Bank, 316 SCRA 326 [1999])
    o0o
    Copyright 2017 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved. Emergency Loan
    Pawnshop Incorporated vs. Court of Appeals, 353 SCRA 89, G.R. No. 129184
    February 28, 2001

    You might also like