G.R. No. 152808 September 30, 2005
ANTONIO T. CHUA, Petitioners,
vs.
TOTAL OFFICE PRODUCTS AND SERVICES (TOPROS), INC
FACTS: On December 28, 1999,
respondent Total Office Products and Services, Inc., (TOPROS) lodged a
complaint against herein petitioner Antonio T. Chua before the Regional Trial
Court of Pasig City. The said suit sought to annul a loan contract allegedly
extended by petitioner to respondent TOPROS in the amount of ten million four
hundred thousand pesos. On February 28, 2000, petitioner filed a motion to
dismiss on the ground of improper venue On August 9, 2000, Judge Pahimna issued
an order denying the motion to dismiss. She reasoned that the action to annul
the loan and mortgage contracts is a personal action and thus, the venue was
properly laid in the RTC of Pasig City where the parties reside. Petitioner
moved for a reconsideration of the said order, which Judge Pahimna denied in
its order of October 6, 2000. Hence, petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals
a special civil action for certiorari. The Court of Appeals dismissed said
petition. Dissatisfied, petitioner filed a motion for
reconsideration, which the Court of Appeals denied for lack of merit in its
resolution of April 1, 2002.
ISSUE: WON there is an
improper Venue
HELD: Well-settled is the rule
that an action to annul a contract of loan and its accessory real estate
mortgage is a personal action. An action for annulment of mortgage is a real
action if there has already been a foreclosure sale. In the Case at bar, it is
not an action involving foreclosure of real estate mortgage. Thus, Pasig City,
where the parties reside, is the proper venue of the action to nullify the
subject loan and real estate mortgage contracts. The Court of Appeals committed
no reversible error in upholding the orders of the Regional Trial Court denying
petitioner’s motion to dismiss the case on the ground of improper venue
No comments:
Post a Comment