ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.

com™  

Tweet Share
Search

 
  Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1956 > November 1956 Decisions > [G.R. No. L-10128. November 13, 1956.]
MAMERTO C. CORRE, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. GUADALUPE TAN CORRE, Defendant-Appellee.:
 

  Custom Search
Search
   
EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-10128.  November 13, 1956.]
MAMERTO C. CORRE, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. GUADALUPE TAN CORRE, Defendant-
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review
Appellee.
 
DECISION
BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:
Plaintiff brought this action in the Court of First Instance of Manila seeking his legal
separation from Defendant, his wife, and the placing of their minor children under the care
and custody of a reputable women’s dormitory or institution as the court may recommend.
Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the venue is improperly laid.
She claims that since it appears in the complaint that neither the Plaintiff nor the
Defendant is a resident of the City of Manila the court where the action was filed is not the
proper court to take cognizance of the case. The court upheld the contention of Defendant
and, accordingly, dismissed the case without pronouncement as to costs. This is an
appeal from this decision.
The pertinent portion of the complaint which refers to the residence of both Plaintiff and
Defendant is as follows: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

DebtKollect Company, Inc.
“1.  That Plaintiff is an American citizen, 44 years of age, resident of 114 North Ist Street,
Las Vegas, Nevada, United States of America, master sergeant in the U. S. Army with
military service address of Ro-6739431, Army Section, Military Assistance Advisory Group
(MAAG) Formosa, APO 63, San Francisco, California, and for the purpose of filing and
maintaining this suit, temporarily resides at 576 Paltoc, Santa Mesa, Manila;
“2.  That Defendant is a Filipino, 40 years of age and resident of the municipality of
Catbalogan, province of Samar, Philippines, where summons may be served;”
Section 1, Rule 5, of the Rules of Court provides that Civil actions in Courts of First
Instance may be commenced and tried 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.” From this rule it may be inferred that Plaintiff can elect to file the
action in the court he may choose if both the Plaintiff and the Defendant have their
residence in the Philippines. Otherwise, the action can only be brought in the place where
either one resides.
It the present case, it clearly appears in the complaint that the Plaintiff is a resident of Las
Vegas, Nevada, U. S. A. while the Defendant is a resident of the municipality of Catbalogan,
province of Samar. Such being the case, Plaintiff has no choice other than to file the action
in the court of first instance of the latter province. The allegation that the Plaintiff “for the
 ChanRobles Intellectual Property Division purpose of filing and maintaining this suit, temporarily resides at 576 Paltoc, Santa Mesa,
Manila” cannot serve as basis for the purpose of determining the venue for that is not the
residence contemplated by the rule. If that were allowed, we would create a situation
where a person may have his residence in one province and, to suit his convenience, or to
harass the Defendant, may bring the action in the court of any other province. That cannot
be the intendment of the rule.
Indeed, residence as used in said rule is synonymous with domicile. This is define as “the
permanent home, the place to which, whenever absent for business or pleasure, one
intends to return, and depends on facts and circumstances, in the sense that they disclose
intent” (67 C.J., 123-124). This is what we said in the recent case of Evangelista vs.
Santos, 86 Phil., 387: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

“The fact that Defendant was sojourning in Pasay at the time he was served with
summons does not make him a resident of that place for purposes of venue. Residence is
‘the permanent home, the place to which, whenever absent for business or pleasure, one
intends to return .’ (67 C.J. pp. 123-124.) A man can have but one domicile at a time
  cralaw

(Alcantara vs. Secretary of Interior, 61 Phil. 459), and residence is synonymous with
domicile under section 1 of Rule 5 (Moran’s Comments, supra, p. 104).”
  The case of Dela Rosa and Go Kee vs. De Borja, 53 Phil., 990, cited by Appellant to support
his contention, is not controlling. In that case, the Defendant submitted to the jurisdiction
  of the court and did not raise the point of venue until after judgment had been rendered.
And so it was held that Defendant was estopped to raise this point on appeal, although in
  passing the court insinuated that residence for purposes of venue need not be permanent.
At any rate, this matter should now be regarded as modified by our decision in the
  aforesaid case of Evangelista.
Wherefore, the decision appealed from is affirmed, with costs against Appellant.
 
  Paras, C.J., Padilla, Montemayor, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Endencia and
  November-1956 Jurisprudence            Felix, JJ., Concur.
     
[G.R. No. L-9123. November 7, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. CORNELIO MELGAR,
Defendant-Appellant.
Back to Home | Back to Main
[G.R. No. L-9023. November 13, 1956.] BISLIG BAY LUMBER
COMPANY. INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. THE PROVINCIAL
GOVERNMENT OF SURIGAO, Defendant-Appellant.  

[G.R. Nos. L-9238-39. November 13, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE QUICK SEARCH
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. VICTORIO JABAJAB, accused-
Appellee.

[G.R. No. L-10128. November 13, 1956.] MAMERTO C. CORRE,

Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. GUADALUPE TAN CORRE, Defendant- 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908
Appellee. 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916
[G.R. No. L-9523. November 15, 1956.] GALICANO E. YAP, 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924
Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. FRANCISCO BOLTRON, ET AL., Defendants-
Appellees. 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932
1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940
[G.R. No. L-9202. November 19, 1956.] THE COLLECTOR OF
INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, vs. JOSE AVELINO and COURT OF 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948
TAX APPEALS, Respondents.
1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956
[G.R. No. L-8717. November 20, 1956.] GENERAL FOODS 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964
CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. NATIONAL COCONUT
CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee. 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972

[G.R. No. L-8774. November 26, 1956.] In the matter of the 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
testate estate of the deceased JUANA JUAN VDA. DE MOLO. 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
EMILIANA MOLO-PECKSON and PILAR PEREZ-NABLE, Petitioners-
Appellees, vs. ENRIQUE TANCHUCO, FAUSTINO GOMEZ, ET AL., 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
Oppositors-Appellants. 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
[G.R. No. L-9098. November 26, 1956.] A. MAGSAYSAY, INC., 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT CO., Defendant-
Appellant. 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018    

[G.R. No. L-9551. November 26, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. ALEJANDRO PAET Y
VELASCO, Defendant-Appellee.

[G.R. No. L-9627. November 26, 1956.] MARGARITA ABARCA

VASQUEZ, assisted by her husband, GUIDO N. VASQUEZ, Plaintiffs- Main Indices of the Library ---> Go!
Appellees, vs. ISIDORA LANDRITO MESAGAL, assisted by her
husband, VENTURA MESAGAL, Defendants-Appellants.

[G.R. No. L-7644. November 27, 1956.] HENRY LITAM, ETC., ET

AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. REMEDIOS R. ESPIRITU, as guardian
of the incompetent MARCOSA RIVERA, and ARMINIO RIVERA,
Defendants-Appellees. [G.R. No. L-7645. November 27, 1956] IN
THE MATTER OF THE INTESTATE OF THE DECEASED RAFAEL
LITAM. GREGORIO DY TAM, Petitioner-Appellant, vs. REMEDIOS R.
ESPIRITU, in her capacity as judicial guardian of the incompetent
MARCOSA RIVERA, counter-Petitioner, ARMINIO RIVERA,
administrator-Appellee.

[G.R. No. L-9709. November 27, 1956.] CONCEPCION R. LIM DE

PLANAS and ILUMINADO PLANAS, Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs.
RICARDO L. CASTELLO, Defendant-Appellee.

[G.R. No. L-10060. November 27, 1956.] MARIA S. PASCUAL,

Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JOSE LACSAMANA, Defendant-Appellant.

[G.R. No. L-7617. November 28, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. PELAGIO G. YANGA, Defendant-
Appellant.

[G.R. No. L-8437. November 28, 1956.] ESTATE OF K. H.

HEMADY, deceased, vs. LUZON SURETY CO., INC., claimant-
Appellant.
 [G.R. No. L-8940. November 28, 1956.] CAPITAL INSURANCE &
SURETY COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JOE EBERLY,
Defendant-Appellant.

[G.R. No. L-8961. November 28, 1956.] ALTO SURETY &

INSURANCE CO., INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. ALEJANDRO ANDAN,
UY SIOK KIAO, TAN LEE and QUIEN TONG, Defendants-Appellees.

[G.R. Nos. L-9391-9392. November 28, 1956.] RIO Y COMPAÑIA

(Succesor of Rio y Olabarrieta), Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. VICENTE
SANDOVAL, MARIA R. DE SANDOVAL, and RAFAEL R. SANDOVAL,
Defendants-Appellees.

[G.R. No. L-9476. November 28, 1956.] G. ASSANMAL, Petitioner,

vs. UNIVERSAL TRADING CO., INC., Respondent.

[G.R. No. L-6584. November 29, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. GUIALIL KAMAD alias MORO
JOSE, Defendant-Appellant.

[G.R. No. L-6897. November 29, 1956.] In the Matter of the Claim
for Attorney’s Fees. CLARO M. RECTO, claimant-Appellee, vs.
ESPERANZA P. DE HARDEN and FRED M. HARDEN, Defendants-
Appellants.

[G.R. No. L-8502. November 29, 1956.] LEONORA T. ROXAS,

Petitioner-Appellant, vs. ISAAC SAYOC, as Collector of Customs of
Manila, Respondent.

[G.R. No. L-8508. November 29, 1956.] MARIA B. CASTRO,

Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. SATURNINO DAVID, in his capacity as
Collector of Internal Revenue, Defendant-Appellee. E. AWAD AND
CO., INC., Intervenor-Appellant.

[G.R. No. L-9147. November 29, 1956.] RAFAELA CAMPO,

ERNESTO GILUANO, REMEDIOS GILUANO, ROSALINA GILUANO, and
FELIX GILUANO, Plaintiffs-Appellees, vs. JUAN CAMAROTE and
GREGORIO GEMILGA, Defendants. JUAN CAMAROTE, Appellant.

[G.R. No. L-9352. November 29, 1956.] Intestate Estate of the

late JOVITO CO, FLORA ROBERSON CO, Administratrix, Petitioner-
Appellee, vs. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Defendant-
Appellant.

[G.R. No. L-9657. November 29, 1956.] LEOPOLDO T. BACANI

and MATEO A. MATOTO, Plaintiffs-Appellees, vs. NATIONAL
COCONUT CORPORATION, ET AL., Defendants, NATIONAL
COCONUT CORPORATION and BOARD OF LIQUIDATORS,
Defendants-Appellants.

[G.R. No. L-9941. November 29, 1956.] PEDRO Z. CLARAVALL,

Petitioner-Appellant, vs. FRANCISCO PARAAN, ET AL.,
Respondents-Appellees.

 
 
  Copyright © 1998 - 2019 ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™  RED