Petitioners purchased residential lots from third parties (Deudors) and are in possession of the lots. The lots are included in a larger parcel of land with a Torrens title under JM Tuason. The lots became subject to lawsuits between the Deudors and JM Tuason. They eventually agreed the petitioners could purchase the lots from JM Tuason, who would execute new purchase agreements. However, JM Tuason did not execute the agreements. Petitioners filed a case for specific performance and damages, which JM Tuason sought to dismiss for improper venue. The court determined this was a personal action regarding the execution of contracts and payment of damages, so venue was proper.
Petitioners purchased residential lots from third parties (Deudors) and are in possession of the lots. The lots are included in a larger parcel of land with a Torrens title under JM Tuason. The lots became subject to lawsuits between the Deudors and JM Tuason. They eventually agreed the petitioners could purchase the lots from JM Tuason, who would execute new purchase agreements. However, JM Tuason did not execute the agreements. Petitioners filed a case for specific performance and damages, which JM Tuason sought to dismiss for improper venue. The court determined this was a personal action regarding the execution of contracts and payment of damages, so venue was proper.
Petitioners purchased residential lots from third parties (Deudors) and are in possession of the lots. The lots are included in a larger parcel of land with a Torrens title under JM Tuason. The lots became subject to lawsuits between the Deudors and JM Tuason. They eventually agreed the petitioners could purchase the lots from JM Tuason, who would execute new purchase agreements. However, JM Tuason did not execute the agreements. Petitioners filed a case for specific performance and damages, which JM Tuason sought to dismiss for improper venue. The court determined this was a personal action regarding the execution of contracts and payment of damages, so venue was proper.
Petitioners purchased residential lots from third parties (Deudors) and are in possession of the lots. The lots are included in a larger parcel of land with a Torrens title under JM Tuason. The lots became subject to lawsuits between the Deudors and JM Tuason. They eventually agreed the petitioners could purchase the lots from JM Tuason, who would execute new purchase agreements. However, JM Tuason did not execute the agreements. Petitioners filed a case for specific performance and damages, which JM Tuason sought to dismiss for improper venue. The court determined this was a personal action regarding the execution of contracts and payment of damages, so venue was proper.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 2
ADAMOS v J.M.
TUASON October 14, 1968 | Makalintal, J. | Venue Stipulations Digester: Yee, Jenine SUMMARY: Petitioners purchased residential lots from Deudors and are in possession of the same. These lots are included in a bigger parcel of land covered by a Torrens title in the name of JM Tuason. The lots became the subject matter of civil cases between the Deudors and JM Tuason. Eventually the two entered into a compromised agreement wherein it states that petitioners may purchase the lots from JM Tuason and JM Tuason in turn would execute new purchase agreements. However, JM Tuason did not execute the agreements. Petitioners now filed a case for specific performance and Damages. JM Tuason filed a motion to dismiss for improper venue DOCTRINE: The action is a personal action. The petitioners do not claim ownership nor ask that possession be delivered to them. ACTION: Appeal from order of CFI dismissing complaint of civil case. FACTS: The plaintiffs, numbering thirty-three (33) in all, instituted this action for "Specific Performance and Damages," alleging four (4) causes of action against J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc., and Gregorio Araneta, Inc., the latter in its capacity as managing partner and attorney-in-fact of the former. In the first cause of action the complaint states that the plaintiffs are in possession of certain residential lots situated in Matalahib and Tatalon, Quezon City, having purchased the same sometime in 1949 from the Deudors The said lots are all embraced and included in a bigger parcel of land covered by a Torrens title in the name of J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. After 1949, the same lots claimed by herein plaintiffs became the subject-matter of several civil cases between the Deudors and J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc. The Deudors and JM Tuason in those cases entered into a compromise agreement: o It states that the plaintiffs, "who are to continue and/or who are entitled to elect and have elected to buy their respective lots, from the legal owners who are now the defendants (J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc) shall be credited (the) sums already paid by them
under their former purchase contracts from their
active predecessors-in-interest" o Also, J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc, now the defendants, shall make new purchase contracts in favor of the plaintiffs with respect to their respective lots acquired by them from the Deudors at the current rate then existing at the time of the execution of the compromise agreement Plaintiffs "are ... willing to buy their respective lots and/or elect to continue to purchase the same from the defendants and also to sign new purchase contracts, but the defendants without any legal justification whatsoever, deliberately refused and failed and still refuse and fail to make new purchase contracts in favor of the herein plaintiffs up to the present time, notwithstanding verbal and written demands made by the plaintiffs to the defendants, and in spite of their written and verbal commitments to plaintiffs." The third and fourth causes of action, merely deal with the prices at which, according to the plaintiffs, the defendants should sell the lots to them pursuant to the compromise agreement. The fourth cause of action contains a claim for damages and attorney's fees. o The relief sought in the complaint, aside from the claim for damages and attorney's fees, is for the defendants to be ordered "to make new purchase contracts in favor of the plaintiffs on their respective lots at the current price ranging from P17.00 to P20.00 (per square meter) at the time of the execution of the compromise agreement." J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc., and Gregorio Araneta, Inc. filed separate motions to dismiss, both pleading improper venue and failure to state a cause of action, and the first alleging, besides, extinctive prescription and misjoinder of parties. CFI Over the plaintiffs' opposition, the lower court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint on one ground, namely, failure to state a cause of action. The material portions of the order of dismissal read as follows: RULING: WHEREFORE, the order appealed from is set aside, and the case is remanded for further proceedings, with costs against the defendants-appellees in this instance.
Whether the venue was proper YES.
The action involved in this case is a personal action to compel the defendants to execute the corresponding purchase contracts in favor of the plaintiffs and to pay damages.
o o
The plaintiffs do not claim ownership of the lots in
question: they recognize the title of the defendant J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc. They do not ask that possession be delivered to them, for they allege to be in possession.
