100%(1)1 out of 1 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 1 - 2 out of 2 pages.
G R. No. 190071UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, PetitionerVersusMAUNLAD HOMES, INC. and all other persons or entities claiming rights under it, RespondentsAugust 15, 2012Facts:In the event of recession due to failure to pay or to comply with the terms of the contract, Maunlad Homes required to immediately vacate the property and voluntarily turn possession over the Union Bank.Under Rule 4 of the Rules of Court “Forcible entry and detainer action shall be commenced and tried in the municipal trial court of the municipality or city wherein the real property involved, or a portion thereof is situated”.The CA affirmed the RTC decision. The dismissal of the ejectment suit was prosper.Issue:Whether the issue of ownership shall be resolved to determine the issue of possession.Whether or not the right to possession of property was extinguished when the contract to sell failed to materialized.Held:Respondent ordered to vacate the Maunlad Shopping Mall and further ordered to pay the rentals accruing in the interim until it vacates the property.Respondent ordered to pay the legal interest per anum on the total amount due until full payment is made.Maunlad Homes questioned the venue of Union Bank’s unlawful detainer action which was filed in Makati City while the contested property is located in Malolos, Bulacan. Citing Section 1, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court, Maunlad Homes claimed that the unlawful detainer action should have been filed with the municipal trial court of the municipality or citywhere the real property involved is situated. Union Bank, on the other hand, justified the filing of the complaint with the MeTC of Makati City on the venue stipulation in the contract which states that “[t]he venue of all suits and actionsarising out [of] or in connection with this Contract to Sell shallbe at Makati City.”30