2008 Bar: What is the proper venue for the action? (3%)


2008 Bar: (a) Angela, a resident of Quezon City, sued Antonio, a resident of Makati City before the RTC of Quezon City for the reconveyance of two parcels of land situated in Tarlac and Nueva Ecija, respectively. May her action prosper? (3%)

(b) Assuming that the action was for foreclosure on the mortgage of the same parcels of land, what is the proper venue for the action? (3%) (a) No, the action may not prosper because it was filed in the wrong venue.

Real action must be filed in the place where the res in litem is situated. Since the action for reconveyance is a real action, it should have been filed separately in Tarlac and Nueva Ecija, where the parcels of land are located (Sec. 1, Rule 4). However, an improperly laid venue may be waived, if not pleaded in a timely motion to dismiss (Sec. 4, Rule 4). Without a motion to dismiss on the ground of improperly laid venue, it would be incorrect for the court to dismiss the action for improper venue (United Overseas Bank Philippines v. Roosemore Mining & Development Corp).

(b) The action must be filed in any province where any of the lands involved lies whether in Tarlac or in Nueva Ecija, because the action is a real action. However, an improperly laid venue may be waived if not pleaded as a ground for dismissal (Bank of America v. American Realty Corp.).