[RULE 1, Sec.
3]
04 GO V. UCPB
Nov 11, 2004 | Chico-Nazario, J. |
Petitioner/s: JIMMY T. GO, petitioner
Respondent/s: UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK, ANGELO V.
MANAHAN, FRANCISCO C. ZARATE, PERLITA A. URBANO and ATTY.
EDWARD MARTIN, respondents
Doctrine: An action for cancellation of real estate mortgage is necessarily
an action affecting the title to the property. It is, therefore, a real action which
should be commenced and tried in Mandaluyong City, the place where the
subject property lies.
Facts:
● Jimmy Go and Alberto Looyuko are co-owners of the Noahs Ark
Sugar companies.
● In August 1996, they applied for an Omnibus Line accommodation
with UCPB in the amount of P900,000,000 and was favorably acted
upon by the latter.
○ The transaction was secured by Real Estate Mortgages
over parcels of land at Mandaluyong City with an area of
24,837 square meters, and registered in the name of Mr.
Looyuko; and another one in Mandaluyong City with an
area of 14,271 square meters, registered in the name of
Noahs Ark Sugar Refinery.
● On July 21 1997, the Omnibus Line was cancelled by UCPB.
○ Go demanded the return of the TCTs covered by the two
mortgages.
○ UCPB refused to return and proceeded to have the
mortgages notarized and registered.
● On June 15 1999, UCPB filed for extrajudicial forclosure of the
mortgages for nonpayment of the obligation. Public auction was set
on April and May 2000.
● Go filed a complaint for Cancellation of Real Estate Mortgage and
damages, with prayer for temporary restraining order and/or writ of
preliminary injunction, against respondent bank and its officers in
the RTC of Pasig.
● UCPB filed a Motion to Dismiss based on the following:
○ that the court has no jurisdiction over the case due to
nonpayment of the proper filing and docket fees;
○ that the complaint was filed in the wrong venue;
○ an indispensable party/real party in interest was not
impleaded and, therefore, the complaint states no cause
of action;
○ that the complaint was improperly verified; and
○ that petitioner is guilty of forum shopping and submitted an
insufficient and false certification of non-forum shopping.
● RTC favored Go and granted the injunction. The auction was also
enjoined.
● UCPB questioned the order before the CA via petition for certiorari
alleging that the TC acted with GADALEJ.
● CA set aside the lower court’s orders on the ground of improper
venue.
● Go raised the issue to the C on petition for review on certiorari.
○ He contends that a case for cancellation of mortgage is a
personal action and since he resides at Pasig City, venue
was properly laid therein.
○ Relied on Hernandez v. Rural Bank of Lucena, in which
the primary action was to compel the bank to accept
payment of the mortgage debt and to release the
mortgage.
Ruling:
W/N petitioner’s complaint for cancellation of real estate mortgage is a
personal or real action for the purpose of determining venue. – REAL
ACTION. The cancellation of the real estate mortgage is a real action,
considering that a real estate mortgage is a real right and a real property by
itself.
● In a real action, the plaintiff seeks the recovery of real property, or
as provided for in Section 1, Rule 4, a real action is an action
affecting title to or possession of real property, or interest therein.
These include partition or condemnation of, or foreclosure of
mortgage on, real property.
○ The venue for real actions is the same for regional trial
courts and municipal trial courts -- the court which has
territorial jurisdiction over the area where the real property
or any part thereof lies.
● Personal action is one brought for the recovery of personal
property, for the enforcement of some contract or recovery of
damages for its breach, or for the recovery of damages for the
commission of an injury to the person or property.
○ The venue for personal actions is likewise the same for
the regional and municipal trial courts -- the court of the
place where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs
resides, or where the defendant or any of the principal
 defendants resides, at the election of the plaintiff, as
indicated in Section 2 of Rule 4.
● In Carandang v. CA, it was held that an action for nullification of the
mortgage documents and foreclosure of the mortgaged property is
a real action that affects the title to the property. Thus, venue of the
real action is before the court having jurisdiction over the territory in
which the property lies.
● The case relied on by the petitioner Go is a personal action and not
a real action. The mortgagee has not foreclosed the mortgage. The
plaintiffs title is not in question. They are in possession of the
mortgaged lots. Hence, the venue of the plaintiffs personal action is
the place where the defendant or any of the defendants resides or
may be found, or where the plaintiff or any of the plaintiffs resides,
at the election of the plaintiff.
● Here, the action for cancellation of real estate mortgage filed by
herein petitioner was primarily an action to compel private
respondent bank to return to him the properties over which the
bank had already initiated foreclosure proceedings because of the
cancellation by the said respondent bank of the omnibus credit line
on 21 July 1997.
● An action for cancellation of real estate mortgage is necessarily an
action affecting the title to the property. It is, therefore, a real action
which should be commenced and tried in Mandaluyong City, the
place where the subject property lies.

Dispositive
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The assailed
decision dated 31 July 2002 and the Order dated 14 November 2002
denying the motion for reconsideration are hereby AFFIRMED. With costs.

Notes
Insert notes