rule6.docx - G R No 190071 UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES...

G R. No. 190071
UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner
Versus
MAUNLAD HOMES, INC. and all other persons or entities claiming rights under it, Respondents
August 15, 2012
Facts:
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
city
where 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 actions
arising out [of] or in connection with this Contract to Sell shall
be at Makati City.”30