SweetLinesvsTeves

G.R.No.L37750May19,1978
FACTS:
Atty.LeovigildoTandogandRogelioTiroboughtticketsforTagbilaranCityviathe
portofCebu.SincemanypassengerswereboundforSurigao,M/S"Sweet
HopewouldnotbeproceedingtoBohol.Theywenttotheproperbranchofficeand
wasrelocatedtoM/S"SweetTown"wheretheywereforcedtoagree"tohideatthe
cargosectiontoavoidinspectionoftheofficersofthePhilippineCoastguard."and
theywereexposedtothescorchingheatofthesunandthedustcomingfromthe
ship'scargoofcorngritsandtheirticketswerenothonoredsotheyhadtopurchasea
newone.TheysuedSweetLinesfordamagesandforbreachofcontractofcarriage
beforetheCourtofFirstInstanceofMisamisOrientalwhodismissedthecomplaint
forimpropervenue.Amotionwaspremisedontheconditionprintedatthebackof
thetickets.
ISSUE:W/Nacommoncarrierengagedininterislandshippingstipulatethru
conditionprintedatthebackofpassageticketstoitsvesselsthatanyandallactions
arisingoutofthecontractofcarriageshouldbefiledonlyinaparticularprovinceor
city
HELD:NO.petitionforprohibitionisDISMISSED.RestrainingorderLIFTEDand
SETASIDE
ContractofAdhesionnotthatkindofacontractwherethepartiessitdownto
deliberate,discussandagreespecificallyonallitsterms,butrather,onewhich
respondentstooknopartatallinpreparingjustimposeduponthemwhentheypaid
forthefareforthefreighttheywantedtoship.WefindandholdthatConditionNo.
14printedatthebackofthepassageticketsshouldbeheldasvoidandunenforceable
forthefollowingreasons:circumstancesobligationintheinterislandship;will
prejudicerightsandinterestsofinnumerablepassengersindifferentpartsofthe
countrywho,underConditionNo.14,willhavetofilesuitsagainstpetitioneronlyin
theCityofCebu;subversiveofpublicpolicyontransfersofvenueofactions;and
philosophyunderlyingtheprovisionsontransferofvenueofactionsisthe
convenienceoftheplaintiffsaswellashiswitnessesandtopromote21theendsof
justice.
RefugiavsCA
Issue:WhethertheMTC,aswellastheRTC,intheexerciseofitsappellate
jurisdiction,havejurisdictiontoresolvetheissueofownershipinanactionfor
unlawfuldetainerwheretheissueofpossessioncannotberesolvedwithoutdeciding
thequestionofownership.
Asthelawonforcibleentryandunlawfuldetainercasesnowstands,evenwherethe
defendantraisesthequestionofownershipinhispleadingsandthequestionof
possessioncannotberesolvedwithoutdecidingtheissueofownership,theMTCs,

neverthelesshavetheundoubtedcompetencetoresolvetheissueofownershipalbeit
onlytodeterminetheissueofpossessionassetforthinSection33(2)ofBP129.