[G.R. No. 156187.

November 11, 2004]

JIMMY T. GO, petitioner, vs. UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK, ANGELO V. MANAHAN,
FRANCISCO C. ZARATE, PERLITA A. URBANO and ATTY. EDWARD MARTIN, respondents.

FACTS:
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision and order of the CA.
Wherefore, the petition is denied for lack of merit. Assailed decision of the CA is affirmed.
Petitioner Go applied for an omnibus credit line accommodation with respondent bank UCPB. Said
transaction was secured by real estate mortgages involving 2 parcels of lands both situated in the
city of Mandaluyong. The omnibus credit line was subsequently cancelled by respondent UCPB. As a
consequence, petitioner Go demanded for the return of the 2 TCTs covered by the REMs, which
demand was refused by UCPB. Instead, UCPB proceeded to have the REMs notarized, registered, and
thereafter subjected to an extrajudicial foreclosure due to nonpayment by petitioner Go of the
obligation secured.
Petitioner Go filed a complaint for CANCELLATION of REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE AND DAMAGES,
WITH PRAYER FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER against respondent UCPB to enjoin the
auction sale in the RTC of PASIG CITY. UCPB filed a motion to dismiss, arguing, among others, that
the case was filed in the wrong venue. RTC denied the motion to dismiss by UCPB, granted the
injunction in favor of Go.
UCPB question the denial of the motion to dismiss before the CA via a petition for certiorari. CA set
aside the orders of the RTC, on the ground of improper venue.
Go filed a petition for review on certiorari before the SC.
ISSUE : Whether petitioner’s complaint for cancellation of real estate mortgage is a real action.
HELD: Yes.
The controlling factor in determining venue is the primary objective for which the case was filed. In
this case, the action for cancelation of real estate mortgage filed by petitioner was primarily an action
to compel respondent UCPB to return to him the properties covered by the 2 TCTs which respondent
bank already initiated foreclosure proceedings because of the cancellation by the said respondent
bank of the omnibus credit line. The prime objective is to recover said real properties. The
cancellation of the real estate mortgage is a real action, considering that a real estate mortgage is a
real right and a real property by itself. An action for cancellation of real estate mortgage is necessarily
an action affecting the title to the property. It is therefore a real action which should be commenced
in Mandaluyong city, the place where the subject properties lie.
Sec1, Rule 4
The venue for real actions is the same for RTCs and MTCs- the court which has territorial jurisdiction
over the area where the real property or any part thereof lies.
Sec2, Rule 4
The venue for personal actions is likewise the same for RTCs and MTCs – the court of the place where
the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs reside, or where the defendant or any of the principal
defendants reside, at the election of the plaintiff.