This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-11-21 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| The better right to possess and the right of ownership of Vda. de Viray (vice Jose Viray) and the Sps. Viray over the disputed parcels of land cannot, by force of the res judicata doctrine, be re-litigated thru actions to recover possession and vindicate ownership filed by the Sps. Usi. The Court, in G.R. No. 122287 (Ellen P. Mendoza and Jose and Amelita Usi v. Spouses Avelino Viray and Margarita Masangcay and Jesus Carlo Gerard Viray), has in effect determined that the conveyances and necessarily the transfers of ownership made to the Sps. Viray and Vda. de Viray (vice Jose Viray) on April 29, 1986 were valid. This determination operates as a bar to the Usis reivindicatory action to assail the April 29, 1986 conveyances and precludes the relitigation between the same parties of the settled issue of ownership and possession arising from ownership. It may be that the spouses Usi did not directly seek the recovery of title or possession of the property in question in their action for annulment of the deed sale of sale. But it cannot be gainsaid that said action is closely intertwined with the issue of ownership, and affects the title, of the lot covered by the deed. The prevalent doctrine, to borrow from Fortune Motors, (Phils.), Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[52] "is that an action for the annulment or rescission of a sale of real property does not operate to efface the fundamental and prime objective and nature of the case, which is to recover said real property." | |||||
|
2004-11-11 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In Fortune Motors, (Phils.), Inc., v. Court of Appeals,[25] this Court quoting the decision of the Court of Appeals ruled that "since an extrajudicial foreclosure of real property results in a conveyance of the title of the property sold to the highest bidder at the sale, an action to annul the foreclosure sale is necessarily an action affecting the title of the property sold. It is therefore a real action which should be commenced and tried in the province where the property or part thereof lies." | |||||
|
2000-02-03 |
PURISIMA, J. |
||||
| However, such ingenious attempt may not efface the fact that the ultimate goal of the supplemental complaint is two-pronged: (a) to retake possession of the plant, and (b) to abrogate the provisions of the mortgage contract or to nullify it, for its own survival. A prayer for the nullification of the mortgage is a prayer affecting real property and hence, it is a real action. Verily, as this Court held in Fortune Motors (Phils.), Inc. v. Court of Appeals, a motion to dismiss an action filed in Manila to annul an extrajudicial foreclosure sale of real property located in Makati on the ground of improper venue should be granted as the action was a real action affecting real property.[37] Hence, the supplemental complaint should have been filed as a separate action in Agusan del Sur in accordance with the following provision of Rule 4 of the Rules of Court:"Sec. 2. Venue in Courts of First Instance (now Regional Trial Courts).- Actions affecting title to, or for recovery of possession, or for partition or condemnation of, or foreclosure of mortgage on, real property, shall be commenced and tried in the province where the property or any part thereof lies. | |||||