469 Phil. 373
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
“A close scrutiny of the allegations in the complaint indubitably show that the above-captioned case is one for specific performance, and therefore, a personal action. The complaint seeks not the recovery of the lot as plaintiff is already in possession thereof, but the peaceful delivery of the title covering said lot. Even assuming for the sake of argument that plaintiff likewise seeks the recovery of real property, this is, however, merely an incident to the principal personal action which is for the enforcement of the agreement between the parties.From the said Order, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration.
“Hence, the above-captioned case being a personal action, the court in the place where the plaintiff resides, i.e. Quezon City, is the proper venue of the action.
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the plaintiff being impressed with merit is hereby GRANTED.
“SO ORDERED.”
“WHEREFORE, the following orders are hereby ordered PARTIALLY NULLIFIED:The Court of Appeals ratiocinated as follows:“Consequently, as an incident to item number 2 above, the respondent judge is hereby ordered to DESIST from further proceedings with Civil Case Q 95-23006, except to ISSUE an order directing the petitioners herein to file their answer to the complaint. Until then, or after such time for filing the answer has expired, the respondent judge may not as yet proceed with the case.
- October 20, 1995 Order – only insofar as it ordered the issuance of the temporary restraining order, and subsequently, the preliminary injunction;
- June 5, 1996 Order – only insofar as it ordered the setting of the case for pre-trial;
“On the other hand, the rest of the petitioners’ prayers are hereby ordered DENIED for lack of merit.
“SO ORDERED.”
”After a careful study of the orders assailed in this petition, we conclude that the respondent judge did not commit any grave abuse of discretion insofar as the order dated August 21, 1995 is concerned. Thus, we agree with his findings that the case filed by Dimaculangan is a personal action involving as it does the mere delivery of the title to Lot 19, Block 17, which he, undisputably, already holds possession thereof. It does not, in any way, involve the issue of ownership over the particular property, as this is not disputed by the petitioners, that the same property belongs to Dimaculangan.From the said Decision, both parties filed their motions for reconsideration but were denied.
“In an attempt to put in issue the ownership over the particular property, the petitioners continuously rely on the doctrine in the case of Espineli v. Santiago. In Espineli, the issue is, who as between Mrs. Ramirez, on the one hand, and the Espinelis on the other, has a better right to the aforementioned Lot 34. Clearly, the ownership over the property has been put in issue. However, in the case at bar, the petitioners do not deny the fact that Dimaculangan is already in possession of the property. Thus, Espineli is somewhat misplaced. The case at bar is one for specific performance for the delivery of the title to the property. As such, it is a personal action. Consequently, venue has been property laid in the court of Quezon City, it being the residence of Dimaculangan.
“Likewise, we do not find any grave abuse of discretion on the part of the respondent judge when he issued the October 20, 1995 Order, at least insofar as the issue of inhibition is concerned.
“Verily, a judge may, in the exercise of his sound discretion, inhibit himself voluntarily from sitting in a case, but it should be based on good, sound or ethical grounds, or for just and valid reasons. It is not enough that a party throws some tenuous allegations of partiality at the judge. No less than imperative is that it is the judge’s sacred duty to administer justice without fear or favor.
“However, we find that insofar as he ordered the issuance of a preliminary injunction in the October 20, 1995 Order, the respondent judge exceeded his jurisdiction. It must be noted that the injunction was directed against DIMO Realty and any other persons acting in their behalf, as well as the MTC, Rosario, Batangas, Fourth Judicial Region, enjoining and restraining them from proceeding with Civil Cases 796 and 797 pending before the MTC, Rosario, Batangas, Fourth Judicial Region, pending hearing and resolution on whether a preliminary injunction should issue. On the other hand, the regional trial court where the judge sits is located in Quezon City, and as such, properly belongs to the National Capital Judicial Region. This being the case, it is clear that the respondent judge has exceeded his jurisdiction because an injunction issued by him may only be enforced in any part of the region. Consequently, the temporary restraining order, and subsequently, the preliminary injunction issued by the respondent judge are hereby ordered nullified, having been issued in excess of his jurisdiction.
“But such error of the respondent judge does not necessarily warrant his inhibition in the case. At most, it is only correctible by certiorari, as in this particular petition.
“Similarly, we do not find grave abuse of discretion on the part of the respondent judge insofar as he denied in his Order of June 5, 1996, the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the spouses and DIMO Realty. As we mentioned in the earlier part of this decision, we agree with the findings of the respondent judge insofar as it ruled that the case filed by Dimaculangan is a personal action. Hence, the respondent judge did not commit any grave abuse of discretion when it denied the Motion for Reconsideration. We therefore uphold the validity of this Order.
“With regard to the order of the respondent judge setting the case for pre-trial, we find that the same was issued in grave abuse of his discretion. We agree with the observation made by the petitioner that the issues have not yet been joined as the petitioners herein have not yet filed an answer. On this score, the writs prayed for must be granted. The respondent judge must order the petitioners herein to file their answer. Until then, or after such time for filing the answer has expired, the respondent judge may not as yet proceed with the case.”
“Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined upon the allegations made in the complaint, irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled or not entitled to recover upon the claim asserted therein – a matter resolved only after and as a result of the trial.”The nature of an action, as well as which court or body has jurisdiction over it, is determined based on the allegations contained in the complaint of the plaintiff, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein.[4]
From the above allegations, it can easily be discerned that respondent is asserting that petitioners violated the contract of services by refusing to deliver the title of the subject lot to him and is thus demanding that they comply with their obligation.“x x x
“2. Sometime in 1967 to 1968, the services of plaintiff as geodetic surveyor was hired by the defendants to subdivide into subdivision lots parcels of lands located at Rosario, Batangas, in the name of defendant spouses which is covered by TCT T-25972 of the Registry of Deeds of Batangas and TCT T-24294 in the name of Ruperto Rodelas x x x:x x x
“3. It was the agreement of the parties that plaintiff’s services will be paid with one (1) lot of the subdivision now called VILLA LUZ SUBDIVISION and originally covered by TCT T-25972, designated as Lot 19, Block 17 of the subdivision plan plus the additional amount of P9,200.00 to be paid in cash with the understanding that upon accomplishment of the subdivision plan and full payment of the agreed price, the corresponding title to said lot already transferred in the name of the plaintiff be delivered to the plaintiff.x x x
“4. On several occasions from 1968 to 1975, plaintiff paid the additional amount of P9,200.00 by installments.x x x
“5. Plaintiff has been making verbal demands upon defendants, every now and then, for the delivery of the title to Lot 19, Block 17 of the subdivision already named VILLA LUZ SUBDIVISION but defendant spouses have been giving the plaintiff a runaround.x x x
“8. Verbal demands have been made upon defendants to deliver the title of the lot in question but defendants refused and continued to refuse to deliver said lot to the plaintiff without any valid reason at all.x x x.”
“SECTION 1. Venue of real actions. – Actions affecting title to or possession of real property, or interest therein, shall be commenced and tried in the proper court which has jurisdiction over the area wherein the real property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated.Considering that respondent’s complaint, being one for specific performance, we agree with the Court of Appeals that the venue is in the RTC of Quezon City since respondent (then plaintiff) resides at No. 8 Cavite Street, West Avenue, Quezon City.x x x.
SECTION 2. Venue of personal actions. – All other actions may be commenced and tried 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.” [5]