La Tondeña v. Ponferrada

G.R. No. 109656 (November 21, 1996)

Facts:

1. Several individuals, referred to as defendants, failed to fulfill their contractual obligation to sell a parcel of land located in Bago City to the private respondents.
2. In response to this breach, the private respondents filed a complaint for "specific performance with damages" against the defendants on August 25, 1987, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bacolod City. A notice of lis pendens was subsequently annotated on the defendants' title, but this was canceled on November 9, 1988, after the defendants posted a bond.
3. While the trial was ongoing in November 1991, the petitioner acquired the same lot from the defendants. The private respondents, feeling aggrieved by this transaction, amended their complaint to include the petitioner as an additional defendant, alleging that the petitioner was not a buyer in good faith.
4. The petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on two grounds: (a) lack of cause of action and (b) improper venue. The petitioner argued that it was a buyer in good faith since the notice of lis pendens had been canceled prior to the purchase. Regarding venue, the petitioner contended that the case should be heard in Bago City, where the property is located, rather than in Bacolod City.
5. On October 1, 1992, the RTC denied the petitioner's motion, stating that evidence was needed to determine the question of good faith. The petitioner's motion for reconsideration was also denied on January 20, 1993.
6. More than three months later, on April 21, 1993, the petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Supreme Court, challenging the RTC's denial of its motions. The Court accepted the petition and required the parties to submit their memoranda.
7. After the submission of memoranda, the petitioner filed a "manifestation" indicating that it had sold the lot to Distileria Bago, Inc. in September 1992, a company in which it had substantial stockholdings. This led the private respondents to move for the dismissal of the petition, arguing that the petitioner was no longer a real party in interest.

Legal Issues:

1. What is the appropriate remedy for an aggrieved party when a lower court denies a motion to dismiss?
2. Was the petition for certiorari filed by the petitioner within a reasonable time frame?
3. Did the RTC commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to dismiss?
4. Was the venue of the case properly laid in Bacolod City?

Arguments:

• Petitioner’s Arguments:

  • The petitioner contended that it was a buyer in good faith since the notice of lis pendens had been canceled prior to its purchase of the property.
  • The petitioner argued that the venue should be in Bago City, where the property is located, as the complaint was for specific performance, which it claimed was a real action.

• Private Respondents’ Arguments:

  • The private respondents maintained that the petitioner was not a buyer in good faith and that the RTC's denial of the motion to dismiss warranted further examination of the facts.
  • They argued that the petition should be dismissed because the petitioner had sold the property and thus lacked standing as a real party in interest.

Court’s Decision and Legal Reasoning:

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for certiorari on several grounds:

1. Timeliness of Filing: The Court noted that the petition was filed more than three months after the petitioner received the RTC's resolutions, which exceeded the reasonable period for filing a certiorari petition.

2. Nature of the Order: The Court emphasized that an order denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory and not appealable until a final judgment is rendered. The proper remedy for the petitioner was to file an answer and raise the objections in the course of the trial.

3. Grave Abuse of Discretion: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion by the RTC in deferring action on the motion to dismiss. The RTC had legitimate doubts regarding the petitioner's good faith, which required factual determination through evidence.

4. Venue: The Court ruled that the venue was properly laid in Bacolod City. The nature of the complaint for specific performance with damages was classified as a personal action, which can be filed in the court where the plaintiff resides.

Significant Legal Principles Established:

• The denial of a motion to dismiss is an interlocutory order and cannot be the subject of a certiorari petition unless there is a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion.
• The appropriate remedy for an aggrieved party when a motion to dismiss is denied is to proceed with the trial and raise the objections in an answer.
• The classification of actions (real vs. personal) affects the determination of proper venue, with personal actions being filed where the plaintiff or defendant resides.