This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-07-31 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| The term "resides" connotes ex vi termini "actual residence" as distinguished from "legal residence or domicile." This term "resides," like the terms "residing" and "residence," is elastic and should be interpreted in the light of the object or purpose of the statute or rule in which it is employed. In the application of venue statutes and rules Section 1, Rule 73 of the Revised Rules of Court is of such nature residence rather than domicile is the significant factor.[13] Even where the statute uses the word "domicile" still it is construed as meaning residence and not domicile in the technical sense.[14] Some cases make a distinction between the terms "residence" and "domicile" but as generally used in statutes fixing venue, the terms are synonymous, and convey the same meaning as the term "inhabitant."[15] In other words, "resides" should be viewed or understood in its popular sense, meaning, the personal, actual or physical habitation of a person, actual residence or place of abode.[16] It signifies physical presence in a place and actual stay thereat.[17] Venue for ordinary civil actions and that for special proceedings have one and the same meaning.[18] As thus defined, "residence," in the context of venue provisions, means nothing more than a person's actual residence or place of abode, provided he resides therein with continuity and consistency.[19] | |||||
|
2010-11-17 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| On 2 August 2002, the Naga City RTC issued an order dismissing petitioners' amended complaint on the ground that the same was barred by the complaint for damages filed against them before the Parañaque RTC. Differentiating said pleading from a supplemental pleading which only serves to bolster or add something to a primary pleading, the Naga RTC ruled that petitioners' amended complaint supplanted and did not retroact to the time of their original complaint.[10] Subsequent to the Naga RTC's 16 September 2002 denial of petitioners' motion for reconsideration of the foregoing order,[11] the Valenzuela MeTC went on to issue an order dated 30 September 2002 reconsidering its earlier dismissal of Civil Case No. 8314 and requiring petitioners to file their answer to the complaint filed by respondents Giganto and the Spouses Joson. [12] In view of the Parañaque RTC's further issuance of the 7 October 2002 order denying their motion to dismiss Civil Case No. 01-0325,[13] petitioners assailed all of the foregoing orders in the petition for certiorari and prohibition docketed before the CA as CA-G.R. SP No. 74030.[14] | |||||