V. Venue (Rule 4)
2
Sec. 4b
1. Spouses Ochoa v. Chinabank, G.R. No. 192877, March 23, 2011
CASE NATURE: MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION of a resolution of the Supreme Court.
RD: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the motion for reconsideration is hereby DENIED
F:
COMPLAINT (REAL): (1) Annulment of Foreclosure, Sale, and Damages filed in RTC Paranaque; (2)
Petition for Extrajudicial Foreclosure of Mortgage filed in RTC Paranaque (neither real nor personal)
VENUE: Petitioner: Makati; Respondents: Paranaque City
1. The parties engaged in a Real Estate Mortgage. The mortgaged property is located in Paranaque
City.
a. The parties stipulated in their REM Contract that Makati City should be the exclusive venue of
any “Action” they will undertake.
b. However, Chinabank filed a Petition for Extrajudicial Foreclosure of Mortgage in RTC
Paranaque—a violation of the parties’ stipulation.
c. The petitioners also filed an Annulment of Foreclosure, Sale, and Damages in RTC Paranaque.
2. CA ruled that the stipulated exclusive venue of [RTC] Makati City is binding only on
petitioners’ complaint for Annulment of Foreclosure, Sale, and Damages filed before the
RTC of Parañaque City, but not on respondent bank’s Petition for Extrajudicial Foreclosure of
Mortgage, which was filed with the same court [RTC Paranaque]. (SC affirmed this decision)
3. LT:
a. Petitioners: Makati should be the venue because according to Sec. 4(b) Rule 4, parties may
stipulate the exclusive venue of the filing of action.
b. Respondent: Paranaque should be the venue because Extra-Judicial Foreclosure, not being an
“action,” is not governed by ROC, but by Act 3135.
I: Which place is the proper venue of Extrajudicial Foreclosure of REM? Paranaque or the place where
the mortgaged property is located.
R:
1. Sec. 4 Rule 4 pertains to Venue of “Actions”
a. “Extra-Judicial Foreclosure” is not within the meaning of the word “action.”
Unlike an action, an extrajudicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage is initiated by
filing a petition not with any court of justice but with the office of the sheriff of the
province where the sale is to be made. By no stretch of the imagination can the office
of the sheriff come under the category of a court of justice… extrajudicial
foreclosures are not judicial proceedings, actions or suits (Supena v De la
Rosa, 1997).
b. The venue of extrajudicial foreclosure sales of real estate mortgages is governed by the special
law and not the general provisions of the Rules of Court on Venue of Actions.
i. Act 3135 provides that the venue of Extrajudicial Foreclosure of a REM cannot be
made legally outside of the province in which the property sold is situated.
ii. In application, since the mortgaged real property is located in Paranaque City, the venue
should also be in Paranaque city. The stipulated exclusive venue is applicable only in the
Annulment of Foreclosure, Sale, and Damages and not to Extrajudicial Foreclosure of REM.
1
Decisive Issue
Sec. 4b and Sec.
2. San Miguel Corporation v. Monasterio, G.R. No. 151037, June 23, 2005
CASE NATURE: PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the CA
RD: WHEREFORE, XXX RTC [Naga City B-20]is the proper venue of the amended complaint for a sum
of money filed XXX. The case is hereby REMANDED to the RTC of Naga City.
F:
COMPLAINT (PERSONAL): Collection of Sum of Money filed by Monasterio.
VENUE: Petitioner: Makati or Pasig or other choice of SMC; Respondent: Naga City
1. SMC entered into an Exclusive Warehouse Agreement (EWA) with SMB Warehousing Services
(SMB), represented by its manager, respondent Troy Francis L. Monasterio for “warehousing
services.”
a. The EWA stipulated that the courts of Makati or Pasig or other courts chosen by SMC should be
the venue of actions.
b. Monasterio is a resident of Naga City.
2. Monasterio filed a Collection of Sum of Money in Naga City for P900k unpaid cashiering fees for
“cashiering services”.
a. SMC filed a MTD on the ground of improper venue.
3. LT:
a. Petitioner: Makati or Pasig or other courts chosen by SMC should be the venue because the
venue is stipulated. The “cashiering job” is under the EWA.
b. Respondent: Naga City should be the venue because “cashiering services” are separate and
distinct services under the EWA. Hence, the applicable rule is Sec. 2 that the venue should be
the place of residence and not Sec. 4b of ROC.
4. RTC: Denied MTD
a. Pending the MR, respondent filed an Amended Complaint deleting his claim for unpaid
warehousing and cashiering fees but increasing the exemplary damages from P500,000 to
P1,500,000.
5. CA: Dismissed SCA for Certiorari assailing the order of RTC.
a. CA ruled that cashiering services are inseparable from warehousing services, thus the venue
stipulated in EWA should have been the proper venue if not for the filing of the respondent’s
amended complaint to which SMC filed an answer. Because of which the case had become
moot and academic. (SC found this decision incorrect)
I: Which is the proper venue for the Collection of Sum of Money? Naga City, because Cashiering service
is not included in the EWA.
DI1: WON “cashiering services” are separate and distinct services under the EWA? YES, therefore Sec.
4b is not applicable.
R:
1. Cashiering service is separate from warehousing service. Records show that respondent received a
separate consideration of P11,400 for the cashiering service he rendered to SMC.
a. The amended complaint shows that the respondent’s cause of action is limited to collection of
sum from cashiering services only.
RULE: allegations in the complaint determines the cause of action or the nature of
the case
2. Where the exclusivity clause does not make it necessarily all encompassing, such that even those
not related to the enforcement of the contract should be subject to the exclusive venue, the
stipulation designating exclusive venues should be strictly confined to the specific
undertaking or agreement.
3. Since convenience is the raison d’être of the rules on venue, venue stipulation should be deemed
merely permissive, and that interpretation should be adopted which most serves the parties’
convenience.
Sec. 4b and Sec. 1
3. Briones v. CA and Cash Asia Credit Corp, G.R. No. 204444, January 14, 2015
CASE NATURE: SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Certiorari.
RD: WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Orders of RTC are REINSTATED.
F:
COMPLAINT (REAL): for Nullity of Mortgage Contract, Promissory Note, Loan Agreement, Foreclosure
of Mortgage, Cancellation of TCT, and Damages against Cash Asia before the RTC
VENUE: Petitioner: Manila; Cash Asia: Makati
1. A loan of P3.5M from Cash Asia was contracted through forgery with the ff. contracts: Promissory
Note, Loan Agreement and Deed of REM. These contracts stipulated the exclusive venue in Makati
City. The property is located in Manila.
a. Briones claimed that he was in Vietnam when the loan was contracted.
b. Because of the unpaid loan, Cash Asia proceeded to foreclose the property.
2. Briones assailed the validity of the contracts in RTC Manila
a. Cash Asia filed a MTD on the ground of improper venue.
3. RTC: Denied MTD
4. CA: annulled RTC order without prejudice to refiling to proper venue.
a. Notwithstanding the claim of forgery, the contracts are clear that actions should be exclusively
filed in Makati City
5. LT:
a. Petitioner: Manila should be the venue because the venue stipulation in the contracts cannot
bind him. His signature was forged, and he was never a party in the contracts.
b. Respondent: the venue stipulation should be followed.
I: Which place is the proper venue? Manila, because Briones’ complaint directly assails the validity of
the contracts.
R:
• Manila is the proper venue because Briones’ complaint directly assails the validity of the contracts.
a. GR: The venue of real actions is the court which has jurisdiction over the area wherein the real
property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated; while the venue of personal actions is the
court which has jurisdiction where the plaintiff or the defendant resides, at the election of the
plaintiff.
XPN: Written stipulation
XPN to XPN: the validity of the written instrument itself (not just a
stipulation) is assailed; Effect: Go back to the GR. [DOCTRINE]
b. Briones cannot be expected to comply with the aforesaid venue stipulation, as his compliance
therewith would mean an implicit recognition of their validity.
NOTE: Condition of Written Stipulation on Exclusivity of Venue (Legaspi v. Rep. of the Phils., 2008)
• The stipulation must be exclusive using qualifying or restrictive words such as
“exclusively,” “waiving for this purpose any other venue,” “shall only” preceding the
designation of venue, “to the exclusion of the other courts,” or words of similar import.
• Effect if condition is not followed: venue is deemed a mere option.
Rule 4 Sec. 2; Rule 16 Sec. 1c
4. Irene Marcos Araneta v. CA and Benedicto , G.R. No. 154096, August 22, 2008
CASE NATURE: PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals
RD: WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED.
F:
COMPLAINT (PERSONAL): Reconveyance of shares of stocks against Benedicto
VENUE: Petitioner: Batac, Ilocos Norte; Respondent: No particular venue mentioned
1. Irene Marcos trusted shares of stocks to Benedicto amounting to 65% of shares placed in
Benedicto’s name in the Far East Managers and Investors, Inc. (FEMII) and Universal Equity
Corporation (UEC).
a. However, Benedicto refused to give the shares to Irene when she demanded reconveyance.
b. Irene Marcos filed in RTC Batac, Ilocos Norte. But she was staying at her husband’s
house in Forbes Park, Makati City.
2. Benedicto filed MTD on the following grounds:
a. RTC has no jurisdiction but the SEC being an intra-corporate dispute (filed on March 2000;
RA8799 became effective on July 2000)
b. No cause of action. It was not alleged that Benedicto accepted the trust in her favor.
c. Improper venue. [ISSUE AT HAND]
3. RTC dismissed the complaint because of the improper venue.
a. Irene filed a Motion to Amend her complaint to include her “new trustees” as
plaintiffs who are all residents of Ilocos Norte to cure the improper venue. LOL!
4. RTC: admitted the amended complaint
a. Amended complaint cured the defect of improper venue.
b. Filing of amended complaint is a matter of right under Sec. 2 Rule 10 ROC.
5. CA: set aside the order of RTC in granting the amended complaint; CA decision on venue:
a. The respondents did not waive improper venue.
b. The petitioners are not residents of Batac, Ilocos Norte.
6. LT:
a. Petitioner:
i. Amended complaint is proper under Sec. 2 Rule 10 ROC
ii. Respondents are precluded from raising the issue of proper venue by their subsequent
acts of filing numerous pleadings which imply waiver of objection to improper venue.
iii. The inclusion of the co-plaintiffs of Irene cures the defect. (SC ruled that the co-plaintiffs
are not the real party-in-interest)
iv. CTC shows she’s a resident of Batac. (SC ruled that CTC is easy to secure)
b. Respondent:
i. There is no original complaint to amend, because the complaint was already dismissed
with finality. (SC ruled that the amended complaint was valid)
ii. Irene (1) is not a resident of Marcos’ Mansion as testified by Marcos’ Mansion household
staff, (2) did not vote in the 1998 national elections, (3) lives in Forbes Park, Makati City.
iii. The case is a real action involving properties outside RTC Batac.
I: 1. WON respondents are deemed waived in raising the issue of improper venue. NO
2. WON RTC Batac has jurisdiction. NO, because of improper venue
DI: What is the nature of the case? Personal
R:
1. Respondents did not impliedly waive improper venue.
a. When deemed waived: when not raised seasonably, i.e., where the defendant failed to
either file a motion to dismiss on the ground of improper venue or include the same
as an affirmative defense.
b. In the case at bench, Benedicto and Francisca raised at the earliest time possible, meaning
“within the time for but before filing the answer to the complaint,” the matter of
improper venue.
 Rule 16 MTD; Section 1. Grounds.
Within the time for but before filing the answer to the complaint or pleading
asserting a claim, a motion to dismiss may be made on any of the following grounds:
XXX
(c) That venue is improperly laid;
XXX
2. RTC Batac has no jurisdiction on the ground of improper venue. Reasons:
a. Subject Civil Cases are Personal Actions
i. REAL AND PERSONAL ACTIONS, DISTINGUISHED: In a personal action, the plaintiff
seeks the recovery of personal property, the enforcement of a contract, or the recovery of
damages. Real actions, on the other hand, are those affecting title to or possession of
real property, or interest therein. The venue of real actions shall be the proper court
which has territorial jurisdiction over the area wherein the real property involved, or a
portion thereof, is situated. The venue of personal actions is the court where the
plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides, or where the defendant or any of the
principal defendants resides, or in the case of a non-resident defendant where he may be
found, at the election of the plaintiff.
ii. In this case, the action is in personam because of the alleged personal liability to Irene
upon an alleged trust. They are not actions in rem, because the actions are not against
the real properties of FEMII and UEC even if the assets of the corporations are real
properties.
b. Venue is Improperly Laid
i. “ANY OF THE PRINCIPAL PARTIES RESIDES,” INTERPRETATION: when there is more than
one plaintiff in a personal action case, the residences of the principal parties should be
the basis for determining proper venue.
▪ The word ‘principal’ has been added [in the uniform procedure rule] in order to
prevent the plaintiff from choosing the residence of a minor plaintiff or
defendant as the venue. (Civil Procedure Annotated by Justice Feria)
▪ Eliminate the qualifying term “principal” and the purpose of the Rule would be
defeated where a nominal or formal party is impleaded in the action since the
latter would not have the degree of interest in the subject of the action which
would warrant and entail the desirably active participation expected of litigants in
a case. (Remedial Law Compendium by Justice Regalado)
ii. In this case, the Principal Plaintiff (Irene) is not a Resident in Venue of Action
1. Irene is the party who stands to be benefitted or injured by the judgment in the suit
(Sec. 2 Rule 3); hence, she is the only real party-in-interest.
2. The co-plaintiffs are “new trustees.” Trustees can only serve as mere representatives
of the beneficiary.
The Court will not speculate on the reason why petitioner Irene, for all the inconvenience and expenses
she and her adversaries would have to endure by a Batac trial, preferred that her case be heard
and decided by the RTC in Batac.
HAHAHAHAHA! ALAM NA 😊
5. Heirs of the Late Flaviano Maglasang v. Manila Banking Corporation, 706 SCRA 235, 2013
CASE NATURE: PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court of
Appeals.
RD: WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The complaint for the recovery of the deficiency
amount is hereby DISMISSED. The extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgaged properties, however,
STANDS.
F:
COMPLAINT (REAL): for recovery of the deficiency amount after extrajudicial foreclosure of REM
VENUE: Petitioner: Tacloban; Respondent: either Tacloban or Ormoc City
1. Sps. Maglasang secured a loan from the Bank secured by 7 Real Properties in Ormoc City.
2. The Sps. Died. The properties of the Sps were extrajudicially partitioned without prejudice to the
claims of the creditors.
3. The bank extrajudicially foreclosed the REM for the amount of P350k but it was deficient. So the
Bank filed a suit to recover the deficiency amount of P250k against the Estate of Maglasang.
4. RELEVANT FACTS IN THE VENUE ISSUE:
a. In their mortgage contract it was stipulated that the venue for foreclosure sale should be
Tacloban City. However, the stipulation lacks exclusivity.
b. The foreclosure was made in Ormoc City or the location of the property pursuant to Act 3135.
5. RTC: jointly and severally pay MBC the deficiency amount after extrajudicial foreclosure of REM
(P434,742.36 + interest).
6. CA: affirmed RTC
7. LT concerning the Venue:
a. Petitioner: Tacloban should be the venue because that is stipulated in the mortgage contract.
b. Respondent: either Tacloban or Ormoc can be the venue because the stipulation lacks
exclusivity.
I: Which is the proper venue? EITHER TACLOBAN OR ORMOC, because stipulation lacks exclusivity
R:
1. Tacloban, the stipulated venue, is only an “additional venue.”
a. Case law states that absence of such qualifying or restrictive words to indicate the
exclusivity of the agreed forum, the stipulated place should only be as an additional,
not a limiting venue. As a consequence, the stipulated venue and that provided under Act
No. 3135 can be applied alternatively.
Sec. 1 and Sec. 4b Sec. 1 and Sec. 4b
6. Paglaum Management v. Union Bank, G.R. No. 179018, June 18, 2012 7. Unionbank v. Maunlad Homes, Inc. G.R. No. 190071, August 15, 2012
CASE NATURE: PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court of PETITION: PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals.
Appeals. RD: WHEREFORE, we hereby GRANT the petition and SET ASIDE the decision of CA.
RD: WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review is GRANTED.
F:
F: COMPLAINT (REAL): Unlawful Detainer
COMPLAINT (REAL): for Annulment of Sale and Titles with Damages and Application for Temporary VENUE: Petitioner: Makati; Maunlad: Malolos Bulacan
Restraining Order and Writ of Injunction in RTC Makati 1. UB entered into a Contract To Sell with Maunland involving the Maunlad Shopping Mall for a Total
VENUE: Petitioner: Makati; Respondent: Cebu Price of P151M, a Down Payment of P2.4M and the balance to be amortized for 180 months.
1. UB extended a credit line of 10M to HealthTech. PAGLAUM EXECUTED 3 REMs to secure the loan. a. Rescission contract allows extrajudicial taking by UB
The properties are located in Cebu. b. Venue stipulation provides Makati.
2. The 3 REM contained 3 venue stipulations. 2. For failure to pay the amortization, UB sent a Notice of Rescission of Contract.
a. First REM in Makati, MM or location of properties 3. Maunlad refused to vacate the premise after sending a demand letter. UB instituted an ejectment
b. Second REM in Cebu, MM or location of properties suit.
c. Third REM in (blank) or location of properties 4. MeTC: dismissed the ejectment suit because of claims of possession and ownership based on
3. The parties entered into a restructuring agreement with a venue stipulation in Makati contract the appropriate action should be accion reinvidicatoria over which it had no jurisdiction.
City only “waiving any other venue.” 5. RTC: affirmed RTC
4. HealthTech defaulted on its payment. UB extrajudicially foreclosed the properties. a. The RTC declared that Union Bank cannot rely on the waiver of venue provision in the
5. PAGLAUM filed a complaint for annulment of sale and titles. contract because ejectment is not an action arising out of or connected with the
6. Union Bank filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and improper venue. contract.
7. LT: 6. CA: affirmed RTC
a. Petitioner: Makati should be the proper venue, because: 7. LT:
i. the Restructuring Agreement governs the choice of venue between the parties, and a. Petitioner:
ii. the agreement on the choice of venue must be interpreted with the convenience of the i. Ejectment suit is correct.
parties in mind and the view that any obscurity therein was caused by Union Bank. ii. Makati is the venue because it is stipulated in the contract (Sec. 4b).
b. Respondent: Cebu should be the proper venue, because: b. Respondent:
i. the Restructuring Agreement is applicable only to the contract of loan, and not to the Real i. UB’s action based on propriety of the rescission is within the RTC not MeTC.
Estate Mortgage, and ii. Malolos is the venue because the real property is situated there (Sec. 1)
ii. the mortgage contracts explicitly state that the choice of venue exclusively belongs to it.
8. RTC: granted MTD I: Who has the jurisdiction? MeTC, because it is a case of Unlawful Detainer
9. CA: affirmed RTC Where is the proper venue? Makati, because of venue stipulation

I: Where is the proper venue? MAKATI, because the case is a real action. R:
1. MeTC has the jurisdiction because it is a case of Unlawful Detainer
R: a. UB met all the elements of unlawful detainer:
1. The action for Annulment of Sale and Titles resulting from the extrajudicial foreclosure by Union i. Defendant had lawful possession
Bank of the mortgaged real properties, is classified as a real action ii. Defendant’s possession became illegal
Muñoz v. Llamas, 87 Phil. 737, 1950: iii. Defendant remained in the property
“An action to annul a real estate mortgage foreclosure sale is no iv. Within 1 year from demand
different from an action to annul a private sale of real property. b. Maunlad may not divest the MeTC of its jurisdiction by merely claiming ownership of
While it is true that petitioner does not directly seek the recovery of title or the property
possession of the property in question, his action for annulment of sale and his 2. Makati is the proper venue.
claim for damages are closely intertwined with the issue of ownership of the a. Special Civil Actions; Ejectment; Venue; The Supreme Court upheld the validity of a
building which, under the law, is considered immovable property, the recovery of stipulation in a contract providing for a venue for ejectment actions other than that
which is petitioner’s primary objective. The prevalent doctrine is that an action for stated in the Rules of Court
the annulment or rescission of a sale of real property does not operate to efface
the fundamental and prime objective and nature of the case, which is to recover
said real property. It is a real action.”
2. Real actions shall be commenced and tried in the court that has jurisdiction over the area where
the property is situated. However, the venue stipulation in the Restructuring Agreement should be
controlling.