Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ANTONIO T. CHUA v. TOTAL OFFICE PRODUCTS

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 175796 2015-07-22	BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK v. SPS. BENEDICTO AND TERESITA YUJUICO BERSAMIN, J.
It is basic that the venue of an action depends on whether it is a real or a personal action. The determinants of whether an action is of a real or a personal nature have been fixed by the Rules of Court and relevant jurisprudence. According to Section 1, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court, a real action is one that affects title to or possession of real property, or an interest therein. Thus, an action for partition or condemnation of, or foreclosure of mortgage on, real property is a real action.[20] The real action is to be commenced and tried in the proper court having jurisdiction over the area wherein the real property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated, which explains why the action is also referred to as a local action. In contrast, the Rules of Court declares all other actions as personal actions.[21] Such actions may include those brought for the recovery of personal property, or 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.[22] The venue of a personal action is the place where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides, or where the defendant or any of the principal defendants resides, or in the case of a non-resident defendant where he may be found, at the election of the plaintiff,[23] for which reason the action is considered a transitory one.
	GR No. 157163 2014-06-25	BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. JUDGE AGAPITO L. ANOSAS BERSAMIN, J.
Based on the aforequoted allegations of the complaint in Civil Case No. CEB-26468, the respondents seek the nullification of the promissory notes, continuing surety agreement, checks and mortgage agreements for being executed against their will and vitiated by irregularities, not the recovery of the possession or title to the properties burdened by the mortgages. There was no allegation that the possession of the properties under the mortgages had already been transferred to the petitioner in the meantime. Applying the determinants, Civil Case No. CEB-26468 was unquestionably a personal action, for, as ruled in Chua v. Total Office Products and Services (Topros), Inc.:[19]
	GR NO. 166837 2006-11-27	LIGAYA S. ORBETA v. RUBEN P. ORBETA TINGA, J.
The recent case of Chua v. Total Office Products and Services (Topros), Inc.,[14] penned by Associate Justice Leonardo A. Quisumbing, also provides a proper precedent. In that case, respondent filed a complaint for the declaration of nullity of a loan contract for lack of consent and consideration. It contended that the purported loan and real estate mortgage contracts were fictitious since it never authorized anybody to enter into said transactions and that the complaint remained a personal action even if it will necessarily affect the accessory real estate mortgage.