ANTONINO VS.

REGISTER OF DEEDS OF MAKATI CITY AND TAN TIAN SU

G.R. No. 185663
June 20, 2012
REYES
Doctrine: Where there is jurisdiction over the person and the subject matter, the decision on all other
questions arising in the case is but an exercise of the jurisdiction.
Facts:
Remedios Antonino had been leasing a residential property located at Makati City owned by Private
Respondent Tan Tian Su.
Under the governing lease contract, Antonino was accorded with the right of first refusal in the
event Su would decide to sell the property.
On July 7, 2004, the parties executed a document- Undertaking Agreement, where Su agreed to sell
to Antonino the property.
There is a disagreement as to who would shoulder the payment of capital gains tax, hence the sale
did not proceed.
Antonino filed a complaint against Su with the RTC of Makati, for the reimbursement of the cost of
repairs on the property and payment of damages.
Antonino filed an amended complaint to enforce the Undertaking Agreement and to compel Su to
sell her the property.
RTC dismissed Antoninos complaint on the grounds of improper venue and non-payment of
appropriate docket fees. RTC said that Antoninos complaint is a specific performance, damages and
sum of money which are personal actions that should have been filed in the court where any of the
parties resides.
Antonino resides in Muntinlupa, while Su resides in Manila. Hence, Makati is not the proper venue
according to RTC.
Sec. 2, Rule 5 of the Rules of Court, provides that specific performance with damages is a personal
action should be tried where the either the plaintiff or the defendant resides.
The RTC also ruled that it did not acquire jurisdiction over Antoninos complaint in view of her failure
to pay the correct amount of docket fees.
Antonino filed a Motion for Reconsideration claiming that her complain is a real action and the
location of the property is determinative of its venue and there was due observance of the rules on
motions, which was subsequently denied by RTC.
Antonino filed a motion for annulment of judgment in CA on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
CA dismissed petition.
Issue:
1. WON RTC of Makati is the proper venue.
2. WON RTC has jurisdiction over the case.
3. WON Antonino may use the remedy of a petition for annulment of judgment as against the final and
executory orders of the RTC.
Ruling:
The petition is DENIED for lack of merit.
1. No. Antoninos complaint is a personal action such that the proper venue therefore is either the city
of Manila or Muntinlupa.
2. RTC of Makati does not have jurisdiction over the case.
3. No. Petition for Annulment of Judgment cannot serve as a substitute for the lost remedy of an
appeal.
Ratio:
1. Antoninos complaint is one for specific performance, damages, and sum of money, which are
personal actions that should have been filed in the court of the place where any of the parties
reside. Makati is no the proper venue.
2. The Court acquires jurisdiction over any case only upon the payment of the prescribed docket fee.
3. In a petition for annulment of judgment based on lack of jurisdiction, the petitioner must show not
merely and abuse of jurisdictional discretion but an absolute lack of jurisdiction. Once a judgment is
final, the issue or cause involved therein should be laid to rest. Only void judgments, by reason of
extrinsic fraud or the courts lack of jurisdiction, are susceptible to being annulled.
Lack of jurisdiction as a ground for the annulment of judgments pertains to lack of
jurisdiction over the person of the defending party or over the subject matter of the claim.
Jurisdiction is different from the exercise thereof. Jurisdiction is the authority to decide a case and
not the decision rendered therein (exercise of jurisdiction). Where there is jurisdiction over the

person and the subject matter, the decision on all other questions arising in the case is but an
exercise of the jurisdiction.