Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 1

Title: United Overseas Bank Phils. v. Rosemoore Mining & Development Corp.

Issue: The venue of the filing of the cases resulted to forum shopping. Facts: Rosemoore Mining & Development Corporation (Hereon Rosemoor) in order to secure a credit facility amounting to 80Million executed a mortgage agreement with United Overseas Bank Phils. (Hereon Bank) which covered six (6) parcels of land all registered under Rosemoor. Rosemoor defaulted which caused the extrajudicial foreclosure of the properties. The bank was the highest bidder in all of the properties. Hence the filing of the case by Rosemoor before the Manila RTC and Malolos RTC. (The issue of the case, filing of 2 actions in 2 different courts) Manila RTC: (Personal Action) Rosemoor filed an action to receive the remaining proceeds of the loan. However, the bank filed a motion to dismiss the case because it contends Rosemoor is violating forum shopping, having initiated a case in Malolos RTC. However the motion to dismiss was denied, likewise it was dismissed by the CA holding that there was no forum shopping. Malolos RTC: (Real Action) Rosemoor second action was filed her to restrain the foreclosure of the properties mortgaged to secure the loan which was not due yet. As it here, the bank filed a motion to dismiss the case due to violation of forum shopping but the likewise it was denied by the RTC and CA. Hence the two petitions were consolidated by the Supreme Court. Hence the case. Held: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Rosemoor, and affirming the ruling of the lower courts that there was no violation of forum shopping Ratio: The Malolos case was filed for the purpose of restraining the Bank from proceeding with the consolidation of the titles over the foreclosed Bulacan properties because the loan secured by the mortgage had not yet become due and demandable. While the right asserted in the Manila case is to receive the proceeds of the loan, the right sought in the Malolos case is to restrain the foreclosure of the properties mortgaged to secure a loan that was not yet due. Moreover, the Malolos case is an action to annul the foreclosure sale that is necessarily an action affecting the title of the property sold. It is therefore a real action which should be commenced and tried in the province where the property or part thereof lies. The Manila case, on the other hand, is a personal action involving as it does the enforcement of a contract between Rosemoor, whose office is in Quezon City, and the Bank, whose principal office is in Binondo, Manila. Personal actions may be commenced and tried where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides, or where the defendants or any of the principal defendants resides, at the election of the plaintiff. It was subsequent to the filing of the Manila case that Rosemoor and Dr. Pascual saw the need to secure a writ of injunction because the consolidation of the titles to the mortgaged properties in favor of the Bank was in the offing. But then, this action can only be commenced where the properties, or a portion thereof, is located. Otherwise, the petition for injunction would be dismissed for improper venue. Rosemoor, therefore, was warranted in filing the Malolos case and cannot in turn be accused of forum-shopping.