G.R. No. 931 : January 27, 1903
PEDRO REGALADO, plaintiff-appellant, vs. FELIX DE LOS SANTOS, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

FACTS:
On May 4, 1891, Jose Regalado Santa Ana entered into a loan and mortgage contract with Felix de los Santos, Gil Javier, and Geronimo Cabajug. The debtors jointly and severally obligated themselves to pay Santa Ana the sum of $5,259.33 within one year, with 15% annual interest. As security, they mortgaged specific tracts of land (haciendas “San Pablo” and “Santa Cruz”) located in Negros. The contract contained a clause stipulating payment in the city of Iloilo and stating that the debtors “expressly submit themselves” to the creditor’s domicile in Iloilo, renouncing all other domicile.
On September 17, 1900, Santa Ana assigned and transferred this mortgage credit, including accrued interest, to Pedro Regalado Montelibano. On November 3, 1900, Regalado instituted an executive (summary) action to foreclose the mortgage before the Court of First Instance of Iloilo. The defendants opposed the proceedings on several grounds, primarily arguing that the Iloilo court lacked jurisdiction because the mortgaged properties were situated in Negros. The trial court dismissed the case, holding it lacked jurisdiction and also noting that the value of the mortgaged property was not shown nor appraised. Pedro Regalado appealed.

ISSUE:
Did the Court of First Instance of Iloilo have jurisdiction to try the executive action for the foreclosure of the mortgage?

RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s judgment and ordered the reinstatement of the case.
The action, being one to obtain both a personal judgment and an order for the sale of real estate, is a mixed action. Under the applicable Spanish Code of Civil Procedure, jurisdiction in mixed actions is vested in the judge of the place where the property is situated or the residence of the defendant, at the plaintiff’s election. However, the parties may expressly submit to the jurisdiction of a specific court.
The clause in the mortgage contract, wherein the debtors agreed to make payment in Iloilo and “expressly submit themselves” to the creditor’s domicile there, renouncing all other domicile, constitutes a valid express submission to the jurisdiction of the courts of Iloilo as defined by the Code of Civil Procedure. The designation of the creditor’s domicile is a sufficient designation of the court for that locality.
The Court also rejected the argument based on the later-enacted Mortgage Law (1893), which required such actions to be brought where the property is situated with “no change of venue being admissible.” Since the mortgage was executed in 1891, prior to this law, and the plaintiff chose to pursue an executive action under the earlier Code of Civil Procedure, that provision did not apply. Furthermore, the trial court’s additional ground for dismissalthe lack of an appraisement of the property’s valuewas erroneous because, in an executive action under the Code, such an appraisement is made after the order of sale, a stage not yet reached when the case was dismissed.