Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

Japan's No.

1 MBA

Free "Leadership"
Online Trial Class on
GLOBIS Jan. 9 (Tue.)
University

Uberrimae Fidei
The strictest law may become the severest injustice.

Monday, December 22, 2014

Paderanga v Buissan (Civil Procedure)


Jorge Paderanga v. Judge Buissan, CFI of Zamboanga and ELUMBA Industries Company

Facts:
Petitioner and private respondent entered into an oral contract of lease for the use of a

commercial space within a building owned by petitioner in Ozamiz City;


Petitioner subdivided the leased premises into 2 by constructing a party wall in between;

petitioner alleged that it is with the acquiescence of respondent but the same is refuted by the
respondent;
Private respondent instituted an action for damages and at the same time prayed for the fixing

of the period of lease at 5 years in the CFI of Zamboanga, Dipolog City;


Petitioner, resident of Ozamiz City, moved for its dismissal contending that the action was a

real action which should have been filed with the CFI of Ozamiz City where the property
questioned is located;

Lower court decisions:


CFI of Dipolog City: denied the motion to dismiss as the case merely involved the enforcement
of the contract of lease, and while affecting a portion of real property, there was no question
of ownership raised. Hence, venue was properly laid.

*When case reached the SC:

Petitioner in as much as it is a recovery of possession of a portion of real property, the case


should have been filed in the CFI of Ozamiz City, where the said real property lies;

Respondent the action is chiefly for damages arising from an alleged breach of lease of
contract; hence, the issue of recovery of possession is merely incidental. The action is one in
personam and not in rem. Therefore venue must be laid in the place where plaintiff or
defendant resides at the option of plaintiff.

Issue: WON venue was properly laid in the CFI of Dipolog City

Ruling: No, the venue was improperly laid.


Private respondent appears to be confused over the difference between real action and
personal action vis--vis actions in personam and in rem.

The former determines venue; and the latter the binding effect of a decision the court may
render over the party, whether impleaded or not;

(Reiterated the usual definitions of Real Actions and Personal Action vis--vis action in
personam and action in rem)

While it may be that the instant complaint does not explicitly pray for recovery of possession,
such is the necessary consequence thereof.

The instant petition does not efface the fundamental and prime objective of the nature of the
case which is to recover the one-half portion repossessed by the lessor, herein petitioner.

Victor Morvis

Share

No comments:

Post a Comment

Home
View web version

Powered by Blogger.

2,500 1,185 1,000 490

490 5,299 799 1,899