BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK, INC. vs.

SPOUSES BENEDICTO & TERESITA YUJUICO

G.R. No. 175796  July 22, 2015

BERSAMIN, J.:

FACTS:

The Manila RTC declared the five parcels of land located in Manila expropriated for
public use under the name of respondent Teresita Yujuico. Two of the parcels of land were
previously mortgaged to Citytrust Banking Corporation, under a First Real Estate Mortgage
Contract.

The petitioner subsequently filed a Motion to Intervene in Execution with Partial

Opposition to Defendant’s Request to Release, but the RTC denied the motion for having been
“filed out of time.”

The petitioner won as the highest bidder in the public auction constituted on the two
parcels of land subject of the respondents’ loan but they sued the respondents to recover the
deficiency in Makati RTC.

The respondents moved to dismiss the complaint on several grounds, namely: that the
suit was barred by res judicata; that the complaint stated no cause of action; and that the
plaintiff’s claim had been waived, abandoned, or extinguished but was denied.

The respondents objected on the ground of improper venue. They contended that the
action for the recovery of the deficiency, being a supplementary action of the extrajudicial
foreclosure proceedings, was a real action that should have been brought in the Manila RTC
because Manila was the place where the properties were located. The Makati RTC denied the
respondents’ motion.

However, the CA granted respondents assailing the orders by petition for certiorari and
contending that the venue of an action for recovery of deficiency must necessarily be the same
venue as that of the extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage. Thus, the suit for judgment on the
deficiency filed by respondent BPI against petitioners Yujuico, being an action emanating from
the foreclosure of the real estate mortgage contract between them, must necessarily be filed
also at the RTC of Manila, not at the RTC of Makati.

Hence, this appeal by the petitioner.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the Court of Appeals’ denial of the petitioner’s partial motion for
reconsideration on the ground of improper venue as a result dismissed the complaint for sum of
money is contrary to law;
2. Whether or not the Court of Appeals’ act of appreciating the additional ground of improper
venue, only raised in the motion for reconsideration is contrary to law and jurisprudence.

HELD:

The Court ruled that the CA erred in holding that the venue of complaint in recovering the
deficiency must necessarily be Manila, the same venue as that of the extrajudicial foreclosure of
mortgage. The petitioner correctly brought the case in the Makati RTC because Makati was the
place where the main office of the petitioner was located.

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. 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.

Personal actions on the other hand 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. 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 nonresident defendant where he may be found, at the election of the plaintiff, for
which reason the action is considered a transitory one.

In civil proceedings, venue is procedural, not jurisdictional, and may be waived by the
defendant if not seasonably raised either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer. Section 1,
Rule 9 of the Rules of Court thus expressly stipulates that defenses and objections not pleaded
either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived. As it relates to the place of
trial, indeed, venue is meant to provide convenience to the parties, rather than to restrict their
access to the courts. In other words, unless the defendant seasonably objects, any action may
be tried by a court despite its being the improper venue.
Engracio U. Ang vs Spouses Benjamin M. Bitanga and Marilyn Andal Bitanga

G.R. No. 223046 November 28, 2019

Peralta, C.J.:

FACTS:

Macrogen Realty engaged the services of Pyramid Construction Engineering Corporation

for the construction of a shopping mall in Paranaque City. But due to Macrogen’s failure to settle
its outstanding obligations Pyramid stopped work on the project and initiated arbitration
proceedings before the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission to compel Macrogen to
settle its debts.

Pyramid and Macrogen entered into a contract of guaranty wherein the respondent
Benjamin Bitanga (Bitanga), president of Macrogen, guaranteed the full and complete payment
of its obligation under the compromise agreement. Yet, Macrogen failed to pay any of the
monthly installments agreed upon under the compromise agreement. Thus, Pyramid filed with
the CIAC a motion for the issuance of a writ of execution against Macrogen but the sheriff of the
CIAC was unable to locate any property of Macrogen, except the latter's bank deposit.

Pyramid filed before QC RTC a complaint for specific performance with an application for
the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment, against Bitanga and his wife, Marilyn and place
it under attachment the shares of stock of Bitanga in respondent Manila Golf & Country Club,
Inc. (MGCCI).

Bitanga's stocks or membership certificate in MGCCI was sold in a public auction having
Pyramid as the winning bidder but the stocks were already transferred to Wilfred Siy.  Because
MGCCI denied receiving the notice of extinguishment, Pyramid filed before the RTC-QC a
petition for indirect contempt against MGCCI, Bitanga and Siy. MGCCI, Bitanga and Siy guilty
of indirect contempt; yet, upon motions for reconsideration of MGCCI and Siy, the RTC-QC
court exonerated both MGCCI and Siy from any liability for indirect contempt.

Petitioner thus claims that, in view of the prior attachment on Bitanga's stocks, he-as the
assignee of Pyramid-has the better right over such stocks than Siy and is entitled to the
registration of the certificate under his name.

MGCCI and Siy argued that petitioner's complaint ought to be dismissed on any or all of
the following grounds: failure of the complaint to state a cause of action, litis pendentia or willful
and deliberate forum shopping. The RTC-Makati issued an Order dismissing, with prejudice,
petitioner's complaint primarily on the ground of litis pendentia.

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but was denied.

Hence, petitioner's direct appeal to this Court.

ISSUE:

Whether the RTC-Makati erred in dismissing his complaint on the ground of litis pendentia.

HELD:

The Court sustains the dismissal of petitioner's complaint but not by reason of litis
pendentia or the pendency of the certiorari case before the CA, but because the main cause of
action therein has already been precluded by the finality of the Order of the RTC-QC in the
indirect contempt case.

The finality of the Order of the RTC-QC in the indirect contempt case meant that the said
order, as well as the matters settled therein, became conclusive upon the petitioner and the
other parties of that case. This as much is clear by the principle of res judicata. Thus, under the
rule of conclusiveness of judgment, a variant of res judicata, matters settled in that final order
already assumed binding and conclusive effect on the petitioner, as well as on the other parties
in the same case, and can no longer be disturbed or relitigated in any future lawsuit between
them. Among the matters settled in the said Order is the fact that the notice of garnishment was
not addressed and validly delivered to MGCCI.

Considering that the notice of garnishment had been served upon MGCCI at the time
when the shares were still registered in the name of Bitanga and there being no other preferred
lien thereon, the right of Pyramid and petitioner as Pyramid's assignee should have been given
preference over and above any other conveyance, more specifically that in favor of Siy. This is
because a purchaser of attached property acquires it subject to an attachment legally and
validly levied thereon. Accordingly, the right of Siy as purchaser of the MGCCI shares is only
subordinate to that of Pyramid as judgment creditor and the highest bidder in the execution sale
held in connection therewith, and that of petitioner, as Pyramid's assignee.