Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
..
Saturday
Venue
- The Manila Railroad Co. v. The Attorney General, G.R. No. L-6287, December 1, 1911
- Davao Abaca Plantation v. Dole Philippines, G.R. No. 134431, December 1, 2000
- Sps. Lantin v. Hon. Lantion, G.R. No. 160053, August 28, 2006
..
Venue
Facts:
the office of the registry of property and of the tax where the lands
sought to be condemned were located and to whom they belonged.
lands described in the complaint, building its line and putting the
same in operation.
to the court to dismiss the action upon the ground that the court
Issue:
province.
Held:
jurisdiction is universal.
projected into judgment. The one class deals with the powers of the
Court in the real and substantive sense; the other with the
This does not mean that it loses jurisdiction of the subject matter.
clearly directed against the one who begins the action and lays the
do with either. The plaintiff does both. Only when that is done does
from the court but to grant something to the defendant. Its wording
clearly deprives the court of nothing which it had, but gives the
have. It establishes a relation not between the court and the subject
,after, but between the plaintiff and the defendant. It relates not to
have the trial take place where his land lies and where, probably, all
the province where the land involved in the suit, or some part
Instance over the land itself but relate simply to the personal rights
express or implied the venue may be laid and the action tried in any
whose lands lie in one province, or any one of such defendants, may,
their or his lands lie. In such case the action as to all of the
..
affect the decision in the case before us for the reason that the
defendants are not objecting to the venue and are not asking for a
to the jurisdiction of the court but are here asking that that
remove it.
Venue versus jurisdiction
DACOYCOY vs IAC
Facts:
Rizal, filed before the RTC, Branch LXXI, Antipolo, Rizal, a complaint
Petitioner’s arguments:
to the defendant and that the court or its magistrate does not
possess the authority to confront the plaintiff and tell him that the
Respondent’s arguments:
case is lodged is not even obliged to wait for the defendant to raise
that venue was improperly laid. The court can take judicial notice
Issue:
Held:
relates to the jurisdiction of the court over the person rather than
between the plaintiff and the defendant and not between the court
case on the merits; while venue deals on the locality, the place
improperly laid, as for all practical intents and purposes, the venue,
whose convenience the rules on venue had been devised. The trial
NOCUM vs TAN
Nocum, Capt. Florendo Umali, ALPAP and Inquirer with the RTC of
premises; (3) the questioned news report constituted fair and true
..
and therefore, was privileged in nature; and (4) malice on their part
stated no cause of action; (2) venue was improperly laid; and (3)
of the offense and the place where the libelous article was printed
venue
printed and first published in the City of Makati" and in par. 2.04.1,
that "This caricature was printed and first published in the City of
Makati"
the CA.
MR likewise denied.
Issue:
Held:
complaint, we find that the RTC acquired jurisdiction over the case
when the case was filed before it. From the allegations thereof,
court and the subject matter; venue, a relation between plaintiff and
Amended Complaint that the article and the caricature were printed
failure to include the same in the original complaint divest the lower
these allegations gave the lower court the power, upon motion by a
party, to dismiss the complaint on the ground that venue was not
properly laid.
were properly laid in the court where the action was instituted, that
place where the libelous articles were printed and first published
would have been tenable if the case filed were a criminal case. The
be fatal because this fact involves the issue of venue which goes into
Facts:
Francisco. U.S.A., for his flight from San Francisco to Manila via
..
not its domicile nor was this its principal place of business. Neither
was the petitioner's ticket issued in this country nor was his
denied.
rule merely of venue and was waived by defendant when it did not
move to dismiss on the ground of improper venue.
Issue:
Held:
the same being from the United States to the Philippines and back to
the plaintiff brought his suit in the wrong county may be waived by
must refer only to Article 28(1). In fact, the last sentence of Article
taken up. This second question shall be governed by the law of the
the case was still in order. The respondent court was correct in
motion is that the Philippines is not the proper place where SANTOS
could file the action — meaning that the venue of the action is
improperly laid. Even assuming then that the specified ground of the
motion is erroneous, the fact is the proper ground of the motion —
GO vs UCPB
Facts:
Noah’s Ark Sugar Truckers, Noah’s Ark Sugar Repacker, Noah’s Ark
square meters, and registered in the name of Mr. Looyuko; and TCT
return of the two (2) TCTs (No. 64070 and No. 3325) covered by Real
and proceeded to have the two (2) pre-signed Real Estate Mortgages
Mandaluyong City.
..
respondent bank and its officers with the Regional Trial Court of
and docket fees; 2) that the complaint was filed in the wrong venue.
on improper venue
Issue:
determining venue.
Held:
of mortgage on, real property. The venue for real actions is the
same for regional trial courts and municipal trial courts -- the court
which has territorial jurisdiction over the area where the real
venue for personal actions is likewise the same for the regional and
municipal trial courts -- the court of the place where the plaintiff or
Facts:
jurisdiction over the persons of the parties and that venue was
Motion.
action and, therefore, the suit to revive the judgment therein is also
property is situated.
which should be filed with the Regional Trial Court of the place
Issue:
Whether or not the complaint for revival of
located.
Held:
4 provide:
..
situated.
filed with the court of the place where the real property is located.
If such action does not fall under the category of real actions, it is
then a personal action that may be filed with the court of the place
connection with said sale; register the deed of sale with the Registry
requests and demands, and that the latter was compelled to file the
previous judgment. The sole reason for the present action to revive
property.
action, the complaint should indeed be filed with the Regional Trial
NOTE:
CLARIDADES vs MERCADER
Facts:
fishpond located in Sta. Cruz, Marinduque, which was the main asset
costs.
the partnership and alleged that its operation had been so far
..
Zulueta and his wife Yap Leding sought permission to intervene, still
later, alleging that they are the owners of said fishpond, having
action; that venue has been improperly laid; and that plaintiff
Acting upon the motion, the lower court granted the same
Issue:
Held:
The fact that plaintiff prays for the sale of the assets of the
thereof.
Facts:
Agreements’), one covering 839 hectares and the other 165 hectares
both contracts was ten (10) years from February 7, 1984 to February
7, 1994 renewable for another six (6) years at the sole option of
grace period of two (2) years viz., until February 7, 1996 within
Agreements.
parties until December 31, 2000 and assured that DOLE will honor
and ‘faithfully comply in good faith with our contracts and other
obligations.
rendered by DAR. DAPCO demanded that DOLE abide with the lease
for 1994 so that the base rental can be computed. Under the
15, 1995.
..
to DAPCO.
complaint, DOLE filed with the Court of Appeals [CA] a petition for
land in dispute. Such being the case, venue lies not in Manila but in
Held:
land leased to DOLE because DAPCO neither denied the fact that the
Program. What is being asserted was the rental payment for the
year 1995 and the succeeding annual rentals until the expiration of
the lease.
by both parties. The Court of Appeals holds that the venue lies in
time the complaint was filed governs. When the complaint was filed
on March 15, 1995, venue for personal actions is in the place where
the plaintiff. Since DAPCO has its principal office in Manila, it cannot
MARCOS-ARANETA vs CA
Facts:
FEMII and UEC with the obligation to hold those shares and their
fruits in trust and for the benefit of Irene to the extent of 65% of
and receivership against the Benedicto Group with prayer for the
hand, moved to dismiss the case filed, adopting in toto the five (5)
over which the Securities and Exchange Commission, not the RTC,
has jurisdiction; (2) venue was improperly laid; and (3) the complaint
were consolidated.
in Brgy. Lacub, Batac, Ilocos Norte and that Irene did not maintain
residence in said place as she in fact only visited the mansion twice
in 1999; that she did not vote in Batac in the 1998 national elections;
and that she was staying at her husband's house in Makati City.
..
Decision, setting aside the assailed RTC order and the amended
complaint.
Issue:
Held:
venue of real actions shall be the proper court which has territorial
arrangement she has with the Benedicto Group. The fact that
FEMII's assets include real properties does not materially change the
inchoate right over the corporate assets, but then only to the extent
of their stockownership.
are not actions in rem where the actions are against the real
As to her, Batac, Ilocos Norte is not what Sec. 2, Rule 4 of the Rules
June 2000 in Batac, Ilocos Norte and in which she indicated her
alone the fact that one can easily secure a basic residence certificate
office and dictate whatever relevant data one desires entered, Irene
procured CTC No. 17019451 and appended the same to her motion
Orlando G. Reslin, and Jose G. Reslin, all from Ilocos Norte, were
venue. Before the RTC in Batac, in Civil Case Nos. 3341-17 and 3342-
resides.
Park, Makati City. She was not a resident of Brgy. Lacub, Batac,
Ilocos Norte, although jurisprudence has it that one can have several
BARITUA vs CA
Facts:
respondent’s car.
which is in Sorsogon.
..
Affirmed
Issue:
Held:
venue, actual residence is the place of abode and not necessarily the
consistency.
the plaintiff but not left to his caprice. It cannot unduly deprive a
court.
improper.
GONZALES vs LOPEZ
Facts:
Lopez Jr. On the part of the owners who signed as heirs of decedent
were Amparo, Rosario and those who represent the other deceased
children of the DECEDENT. (Note that not all of the heirs signed the
contract)
contract on the ground that it was not signed by all the heirs.
affirmed
Issue:
improperly laid.
Held:
POLYTRADE vs BLANCO
Facts:
Issue:
Held:
covering the first two causes of action. Only the third and fourth
to sue and be sued in the court of manila” does not preclude the
Manila alone is the venue are totally absent. That agreement did not
change or transfer venue, it simply is permissive. They did not waive
..
Facts:
promissory notes.
the RTC of Batangas alleging that only their peso loans were covered
venue of any suit in Metro Manila. RTC – dismissed the case for
improper venue
Issue:
Held:
parties, before the filing of the action, have validly agreed in writing
purpose any other venue” are restrictive and used advisedly to meet
the requirements.
Facts:
favour UHI assigning all their rights and interests over Cruz’s
Uniwide Sales. UHI sent a letter for the settlement of the obligation
damages
actual damages.
which states that the venue shall be exclusive in Quezon City. RTC –
Issue:
stipulation?
Held:
same parties, one of which does not arise out of the contract where
the exclusive venue was stipulated upon, the complaint, as in the
one at bar, may be brought before other venues provided that such
other cause of action falls within the jurisdiction of the court and
..
vs.
al., defendants-appellants.
MORELAND, J.:
the plaintiff upon the ground that the court had no jurisdiction of
The question for our consideration and decision is the power and
search in the office of the registry of property and of the tax where
condemned. After filing and duly serving the complaint the plaintiff,
building its line and putting the same in operation. During the
it. On the coming in of this report the court, by order entered the
27th of September, 1909, set the 11th day of October following for
the hearing thereon.
to the court to dismiss the action upon the ground that the court
after due consideration, the trial court dismissed the action upon
the ground presented by the plaintiff. This appeal is taken from said
judgment of dismissal.
The decision of the learned trial court was based entirely upon the
and in all other proceedings affecting title to land, the Court of First
1. Original; and
2. Appellate.
provisions of sections 48, 49, 50, 51, and 52 at all militate against the
that a particular court shall hold its sessions in any other province
projected into judgment. The one class deals with the powers of the
Court in the real and substantive sense; the other with the
procedure by which such powers are put into action. The one is the
thing itself; the other is the vehicle by which the thing is transferred
from the court to the parties. The whole purpose and object of
..
available for justice. The most perfect procedure that can be devised
is that which gives opportunity for the most complete and perfect
natural justice. It is that one which, in other words, gives the most
of the court over the subject matter, but to give it effective facility in
part of its authority effective for justice between the parties is many
created not to hinder and delay but to facilitate and promote the
criticism.
and while the one is the natural result o the other, it is different in
the court over the subject matter existed and was fixed before
exercise it loses the power to exercise it legally. This does not mean
subject matter, nothing can change the jurisdiction of the court over
the court over the person is, in some instances, made to defend on
attached.
those provisions of the law which the plaintiff claims are decisive of
the success of its cause upon section 377 of the Code of Civil
The fact that such a provision appears in the procedural law at once
be followed. The matter is, under the law, entirely within the control
the requirements of the law. It is true that this court has more than
which, under the procedural law, has not been selected as the
contract may ignore it at pleasure. The law will not compel the
which hold thus is no authority for the proposition that two persons
any court having jurisdiction in the premises. In the one case the
because not between the parties; but, rather, between the parties
This being so, we say again, even though it be repetition, that after
follows:
..
province where the land lies. And in all cases process may
legacies.
the province where the land, or some part thereof, is situated." The
prohibition here is clearly directed against the one who begins the
action and lays the venue. The court, before the action is
Only when that is done does the section begin to operate effectively
on the power of the court but on the rights of the plaintiff. It is not
had, but gives the defendant, as against the plaintiff, certain rights
which he did not have. It establishes a relation not between the
court and the subject ,after, but between the plaintiff and the
unqualified right, if he desires it, to have the trial take place where
his land lies and where, probably, all of his witnesses live. Its object
of the court, how easy it would have been to say so squarely. "No
would have been clearly a limitation on the court rather than the
party. There would have been no room for doubt. The legislature,
however, did not do so. It, rather, chose to use language which
Act No. 136, we are of the opinion that the jurisdiction ought not to
that section 377 is not such Act, that it is found in code of Procedure
rather than in the substantive law, that it deals with the relative
procedural rights of parties rather than the power of the court, that
it relates to the place rather than to the thing, that it composes the
whole of a chapter headed simply "Venue," lead us to hold that the
course of practice — that is, by the process of the court — but also
U.S., 594; Fisher vs. Shropshire, 147 U.S., 133.) The defendants are
now in this court asking that the action be not dismissed but
continued. They are not only nor objecting to the jurisdiction of the
court but, rather, are here on this appeal for the purpose of
complaint:
its action it had to know the name of every necessary defendant, the
land he owned, and the extent of that portion to be condemned.
the action in the proper court. That the plaintiff at the time it
commenced this action did not know in what province its proposed
know in what province the land lay which it was about to make the
province where no part of the land lay, took possession of the land
court and trouble and expense to the parties, calmly asks the
dismissal of the case for the reason that it did not know where its
claim that it has not yielded itself to the jurisdiction of the court.
..
litigation. It now attempts to make all this go for naught alleging its
own negligence as a reason for such attempt. (Ayers vs. Watson and
While the latter part of section 377 provides that "the failure of a
his part of all objection to the place or tribunal in which the action is
that such provision is controlling in this case. In the first place, the
the action." It might well have been in the mind of the lawmakers
files his answer or goes to trial, being fully informed, he might justly
be held to have waived his right to make such objection. for this
extending the time for his protection beyond the "time of entering
The general rule of law is that a person may renounce any right
section 377 without very clear provision therein to that effect. There
Even though the terms of said section were much clearer than they
are in this respect, we should still hold, if they were much short of
ourselves not only upon the principles already laid down but also
given no rights respecting it. Yet it is the plaintiff who is here calling
for the application of the provision even against the declared will of
in its terms nor named as its beneficiary. But even if the plaintiff
Ill. App., 307; White vs. Conn. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 4 Dill (U.S.), 183;
Shuttle vs. Thompson, 15 Wall., 159; Beecher vs. Mill Co., 45 Mich.,
Landram, 5 Bush (Ky.), 230; State vs. Mitchell, 31 Ohio State, 592;
Counterman vs. Dublin, 38 Ohio State, 515; McCarthy vs. Lavasche,
89 Ill., 270; Ricketts vs. Spraker, 77 Ind., 371; Strosser vs. City of Fort
Wayne, 100 Ind., 443). Section 333 of the Code of Civil Procedure
reads:
(Rodriguez vs. Martinez, 5 Phil. Rep., 67; 69; Municipality of Oas vs.
Roa, 7 Phil. Rep., 20, 22; Trinidad vs. Ricafort et al., 7 Phil. Rep., 449,
The fact is, there are very few rights which may not be renounced,
69 Vt., 91; Donahue vs. Windsor County Ins. Co., 56 Vt., 91;
Donahaue vs. Windsor Ins. co., 33 Atl., 902, 904, 66 Conn., 21, 40;
Fitzpatrick vs. Hartford Life & Annuity Ins. Co., 56 Conn., 116, 134, 17
Atl., 411, 7 Am. St. Rep., 288; Lewis vs. Phoenix Mut. Life Ins. Co., 44
Conn., 72, 91; State vs. Hartley, 52 Atl., 615, 617, 75 Conn., 104; First
Nat. Bank vs. Hartford L. & A. Ins. Co., 45 Conn., 22, 44; Johnson vs.
Schar, 70 N.W., 838, 839, 9 S. D., 536; Corey vs. Bolton, 63 N.Y.,
Supp., 915, 917, 31 Misc. Rep., 138; Mason's Supply Co. vs. Jones, 68
N. Y. Supp., 806, 809, 58 App. Div., 231; Monroe Waterworks Co. vs.
City of Monroe, 85 N.W., 685, 688, 100 Wis., 11; Fraser vs. Aetna Life
Ins. Co., 90 N.W., 476, 481, 114 Wis., 510; Cedar Rapids Water Co.
vs. Cedat Rapids, 90 N.W., 746, 749, 117 Iowa, 250; Kennedy vs.
Roberts, 75 N.W., 363, 366, 105 Iowa, 521; Shaw vs. Spencer, 100
Mass., 382, 395, 97 Am. Dec., 107, 1 Am. Rep., 115; West vs. Platt,
127 Mass., 367, 367, 372; Fulkerson vs. Lynn, 64 Mo. App., 649, 653;
Michigan Savings & Loan Ass'n. vs. Missouri, K & T. Trust Co., 73 Mo.
App., 161, 165; Perin vs. Parker, 18 N. E., 747, 748, 126 Ill., 201, 2
L.R.A., 336, 9 Am. St. Rep., 571; Keller vs. Robinson & Co., 38 N. E.,
1072, 1075, 152 Ull. 458; Star Brewery Co. vs. Primas, 45 N.E., 145,
148, 163 Ill., 652; United Firemen's Ins. Co. vs. Thomas (U.S.), 82
Fed., 406, 408, 27 C.C. A., 42, 47 L.R.A., 450; Rice vs. Fidelity &
Deposit Co. (U.S.), 103 Fed., 427, 43 C.C.A., 270; Sidway vs. Missouri
Land & Live Stock Co. (U.S.), 116 Fed., 381, 395; able vs. United
States Life Ins. Co. (U.S.), 111 Fed., 19, 31, 49 C.C.A., 216L Peninsular
Land Transp., etc., Co. vs. Franklin Ins. Co., 35 W. Va., 666, 676, 14
S.E., 237; Dey vs. Martin, 78 Va., 1, 7; Liverpool & L.& G. Ins. Co. vs.
T.M. Richardson Lumber Co., 69 Pac., 938, 951, 11 Okl., 585; Livesey
vs. Omaha Hotel, 5 Neb., 50, 69; Cutler vs. Roberts, 7 Nebr., 4, 14, 29
Am. Rep., 371; Warren vs. Crane, 50 Mich., 300, 301, 15 N.W., 465;
Portland & R.R. Co. vs. Spillman, 23 Oreg., 587, 592, 32 Pac., 688,
689; First Nat. Bank vs. Maxwell, 55 Pac., 980, 982, 123 Cal., 360, 69
Am. St. Rep., 64; Robinson vs. Pennsylvania Fire Ins. Co., 38 Atl., 320,
322, 90 Me., 385; Reed vs. Union Cent. Life Ins. Co., 61 Pac., 21, 21
Utah, 295; Dale vs. Continental Ins. Co., 31 S.W., 266, 269, 95 Tenn.,
38; Supreme Lodge K.P. vs. Quinn, 29 South., 826, 829, 95 Tenn., 38;
Supreme Lodge K.P. vs. Quinn, 29 South., 826, 827, 78 Miss., 525;
..
reason that we desired that the principles which rule the case
case of First National Bank of Charlotte vs. Morgan (132 U.S., 141), it
was held that the exemption of national banks from suits in State
Wall., 383, 394; Croker vs. Marine Nat. Bank, 101 Mass.,
necessary.
In the case of Ex parte Schollenberger (96 U.S., 369), the court said:
In the case of St. Louis and San Francisco Railway Co. vs. McBride
inhabitant," still the right to insist upon suit only in the one
suit was brought, nor found therein. In that case the court
acts of theirs to give it. But that is not the case. The court
421) and Barry vs. Foyles (1 Pt., 311) are decisive to show
that the suit could not have been commenced in the first
..
The circuit courts of the United States are thus vested with
when that does not appear upon the record, the court, of
St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. vs. McBride, 141 U.S., 127; Southern
Pacific Co. vs. Dento, 146 U.S., 202, 206; Texas & Pacific
Railway Co. vs. Saunders, 151 U.S., 105; Central Trust Co.
In the case of Central Trust Co. vs. McGeorge (151 U.S., 129), the
(Improvement Co. vs. Gibney, 16 Sup. Ct., 272, 160 U.S., 217; 40 L.
ed., 401; Walker vs. Windsor Nat. Bank, 5 C. C. A., 421, 56 Fed., 76, 5
U.S. App., 423; Von Auw. vs. Chicago Toy & Fancy Goods Co., 69
Fed., 448 McBride vs. Grand de Tour Plow Co., 40 Fed., 162; Black vs.
Thorne, Fed. Cas. No. 1, 495 (10 Blatchf., 66, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas., 550);
Norris vs. Atlas Steamship Co., 37 Fed., 279; Hoover & Allen Co. vs.
Columbia Straw Paper Co., 68 Fed., 945; Blackburn vs. Railroad Co.,
Fed., Fed., Cas. No. 1, 467 (2 Flip., 525); Vermont Farm Mach. Co. vs.
In the case of Security Loan and Trust Co. vs. Kauffman (108 Cal.,
In the case of Chouteau vs. Allen (70 Mo., 290), the court held as
follows:
action. So also, in Ulrici vs. Papin (11 Mo.., 42), where the
it was objected that the suit was not brought in the proper
..
mortgages.
In the case of Armendiaz vs. Stillman (54 Texas, 623), the court
goods or person."
where they are brought: "They have" (i. e., the courts),
where a person who has done the wrong, and who ought
judgment.'
In the case of De La Vega vs. Keague (64 Texas, 205), the court said:
..
prevail.
In the case of Kipp vs. Cook (46 Minn., 535), the court made use of
the case of Gill vs. Bradley (21 Minn., 15), wherein it was
consent of parties.
In the case of the west Point Iron Co. vs. Reymert (45 N.Y., 703), the
court said:
Spain:
of the parties and so binding upon them that they are now
Jur., 64.)
232.)
the mere act of filing his complaint therein and the latter
by his answering the same and taking any step other than
Jur., 14.)
..
the case of local actions the plaintiff was bound to lay the
conflict with the principles laid down in this opinion. In the case of
Serrano vs. Chanco (5 Phil. Rep., 431), the matter before the court
was the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance over the actions
than section 377 of that code. The argument of the court touching
The case of Molina vs. De la Riva (6 Phil. Rep., 12), presented simply
In the case of Molina vs. De la Riva (7 Phil. Rep., 302), the action was
The demurrer was also based upon the ground that this
jurisdiction.
the court that perhaps the former action could not be maintained
was not intended to be decisive and was not thought at the time to
authorities.
The case of Castano vs. Lobingier (9 Phil. Rep., 310), involved the
the province in which the Court of First Instance was sitting at the
We, therefore, hold that the terms of section 377 providing that
actions affecting real property shall be brought in the province
where the land involved in the suit, or some part thereof, is located,
do not affect the jurisdiction of Courts of First Instance over the land
place of trial.
decision of this case. That is Act No. 1258. In it are found these
provisions:
..
five, and the action of the court upon the report of the
separately.
quoted. The provisions regarding the place and method of trial are
procedural. They touched not the authority of the court over the
land but, rather, the powers which it may exercise over the parties.
They relate not to the jurisdictional power of the court over the
We have thus far drawn an analogy between section 377 of the code
the Philippine Islands conferred upon them by Act No. 136. We have
of Civil Procedure with section 3 of Act No. 1258. both of which are
that all actions affecting real estate "shall be brought in the province
corporation to condemn land for its uses the plaintiff "may in its
Act No. 1258 and section 377 are quite different in their wording.
While the latter provides that the actions of which it treats shall be
lies, Act No. 1258, section 3, stipulates that the actions embraced in
its terms shall be brought only in the province where the land lies.
This does not mean, of course, that if a single parcel of land under
province. Nor does it mean that the aid of section 377 is required to
against division of actions into parts, and the general principle that
jurisdiction over a subject matter singly owned will not be divided
among different courts, the one in which the action is first brought
two laws, section 377 and Act No. 1258, differ in the manner
quite opposite. While it is true that section 377 speaks of action for
from one end of the country to the other. Act No. 1258 is a special
the land lies would work a very great hardship to many defendants
with all the inconvenience and expense which the journey would
entail, and submit the valuation of their lands into only to the Court
section 377 of the code of Civil Procedure should apply to actions for
has no right to ask for a change of venue if the land involved in the
court sits before which the action has been commenced. When,
commenced in each province in order that they may have a fair and
convenient trial not only before the court but also before
hand, but who are best able to judge of the weight of testimony
We, therefore, hold that section 377 of the Code of Civil Procedure
implied the venue may be laid and the action tried in any province
his lands lie. In such case the action as to all of the defendants not
While we are of that opinion and so hold it can not affect the
decision in the case before us for the reason that the defendants are
not objecting to the venue and are not asking for a change thereof.
jurisdiction of the court but are here asking that that jurisdiction be
place where the crime was committed. While the laws here do not
For these reasons the judgment below must be reversed and the
cause remanded to the trial court with direction to proceed with the
..
vs.
FERNAN, C.J.:p
May the trial court motu proprio dismiss a complaint on the ground
case at bar.
Cainta, Rizal, filed before the Regional Trial Court, Branch LXXI,
Guzman praying for the annulment of two (2) deeds of sale involving
petitioner's demand.
affirmed the
that the venue was improperly laid when the defendant, now
belongs solely to the defendant and that the court or its magistrate
does not possess the authority to confront the plaintiff and tell him
venue was improperly laid, the trial court is powerless to dismiss the
defendant to raise that venue was improperly laid. The court can
venue.
the jurisdiction of the court over the person rather than the subject
plaintiff and the defendant and not between the court and the
the case.
merits; while venue deals on the locality, the place where the suit
may be had.
5
In Luna vs. Carandang,
Oriental Mindoro, which complaint said trial court dismissed for lack
or by implication.
In the instant case, even granting for a moment that the action of
jurisdiction over the case, it being a regional trial court vested with
the exclusive original jurisdiction over "all civil actions which involve
the title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein . .
..
the City Sheriff of Olongapo City or his deputy to serve the summons
voluntarily in court
10
At this
11
improperly laid, as for all practical intents and purposes, the venue,
whose convenience the rules on venue had been devised. The trial
Indeed, it was grossly erroneous for the trial court to have taken a
are for the speedy and expeditious resolution of cases, justice and
afford not only the defendant, but the plaintiff as well, the right to
SO ORDERED.
..
Petitioners,
vs.
vs.
DECISION
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
of the Court of
Appeals dated 19 April 2000 that affirmed the order of the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 56, in Civil Case No. 98-2288,
dated 19 April 1999, admitting respondent Lucio Tan’s Amended
Armand Nocum, Capt. Florendo Umali, ALPAP and Inquirer with the
seeking moral and exemplary damages for the alleged malicious and
INQUIRER and NOCUM filed their joint answer, dated October 27,
1998, wherein they alleged that: (1) the complaint failed to state a
was privileged in nature; and (4) malice on their part was negated by
ALPAP and UMALI likewise filed their joint answer, dated October
31, 1998, and alleged therein that: (1) the complaint stated no cause
of action; (2) venue was improperly laid; and (3) plaintiff Lucio Tan
was not a real party in interest. It appeared that the complaint failed
commission of the offense and the place where the libelous article
was printed and first published.
"This article was printed and first published in the City of Makati" (p.
53, Rollo, CA-G.R. SP No. 55192), and in par. 2.04.1, that "This
caricature was printed and first published in the City of Makati" (p.
55, id.).
The lower court, after having the case dismissed for improper
venue, admitted the amended complaint and deemed set aside the
petitions for certiorari were filed, one filed by petitioners which was
Umali and ALPAP which was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 54894. The
two petitions were consolidated.
DUE COURSE and DISMISSED for lack of merit. The Order of the
petitioners.
to which
the petition
7
On 20 August 2003, the Court resolved to give due course to the
Both petitioners
COURT HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE (ON THE BASIS OF THE
..
CASE.
10
Petitioners state that Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code vests
jurisdiction over all civil and criminal complaints for libel on the RTC
of the place: (1) where the libelous article was printed and first
argue that since the original complaint only contained the office
place where the allegedly offending news reports were printed and
jurisdiction over the civil case upon the filing of the original
action.
11
we find that the RTC acquired jurisdiction over the case when the
case was filed before it. From the allegations thereof, respondent’s
which is vested with the RTC. Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code
12
that is specifically
14
differentiated jurisdiction
court and the subject matter; venue, a relation between plaintiff and
Complaint that the article and the caricature were printed and first
failure to include the same in the original complaint divest the lower
these allegations gave the lower court the power, upon motion by a
party, to dismiss the complaint on the ground that venue was not
properly laid.
In Laquian v. Baltazar,
15
16
17
we laid
down the following rules on the venue of the criminal and civil
1. General rule: The action may be filed in the Court of First Instance
of the province or city where the libelous article is printed and first
time the offense was committed, the venue is Manila or the city or
Manila, the venue is the province or the city where he held office at
the option to file the action in the Court of First Instance of the
published.
We further restated
18
the criminal action may be filed in the Court of First Instance of the
published.
may also be filed in the Court of First Instance of the province where
the time of the commission of the offense, the action may be filed in
Manila, the action may be filed in the Court of First Instance of the
of the offense.
actions. Assuming that venue were properly laid in the court where
waived.
venue, the lower court had jurisdiction over the case. Apparently,
..
...
allege neither the residence of the complainant nor the place where
before the finality of the dismissal, the same may still be amended
19
person rather than the subject matter. Venue relates to trial and not
to jurisdiction.
20
the court.
21
trial.
22
23
the case because respondent failed to allege the place where the
libelous articles were printed and first published would have been
tenable if the case filed were a criminal case. The failure of the
because this fact involves the issue of venue which goes into the
The cases
24
courts over which they originally had none. This is not true in the
the subject matter upon the filing of the original complaint. It did
SO ORDERED.
Full Text Cases: RULE 4 - Venue CIVIL PROCEDURE
..
vs.
respondents.
CRUZ, J.:
Manila via Tokyo and back. The scheduled departure date from
Tokyo was December 20, 1986. No date was specified for his return
to San Francisco.
On March 12, 1987, the petitioner sued NOA for damages in the
before:
The private respondent contended that the Philippines was not its
domicile nor was this its principal place of business. Neither was the
2
The petitioner appealed to the Court of
On June
26, 1991, the petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but the
The assignment of errors may be grouped into two major issues, viz:
and
protection of minors.
through its Resolution No. 19, on May 16, 1950. The Philippine
October 13, 1950, and was deposited with the Polish government on
formal adherence thereto. "to the end that the same and every
article and clause thereof may be observed and fulfilled in good faith
the Philippine government and, as such, has the force and effect of
brought is arbitrary and irrational and thus violates the due process
..
The treaty which is the subject matter of this petition was a joint
litigation of any claim that may arise between the airline and its
agree with the respondent court that this case can be decided on
issue.
"the conditions prevailing then and which have long ceased to exist."
industry through the years, the treaty has become irrelevant. Hence,
to the extent that it has lost its basis for approval, it has become
unconstitutional.
unreasonable."
in the condition of the contracting parties that they could not have
It is true that at the time the Warsaw Convention was drafted, the
But the more important consideration is that the treaty has not
Parties.
laws and treaties in force and not with their wisdom or efficacy.
The petitioner alleges that the expenses and difficulties he will incur
denial of his right to access to our courts for the protection of his
mean that a person can go to any court for redress of his grievances
..
barred from filing his complaint before our courts, it is because they
are not vested with the appropriate jurisdiction under the Warsaw
II
venue.
as follows:
being from the United States to the Philippines and back to the
jurisdictional.
10
consent of the parties and an objection that the plaintiff brought his
11
jurisdiction other than Article 28(1), which means that the phrase
12
domestic law. Only after the question of which court has jurisdiction
question shall be governed by the law of the court to which the case
is submitted.
The petitioner submits that since Article 32 states that the parties
occurred."
Article 32 provides:
Article 28.
waived "after the damages (shall have) occurred," the article should
does not support this conclusion. In any event, we agree that even
respondent court was correct in affirming the ruling of the trial court
therein.
13
14
decision of our Court of Appeals, where it was held that Article 28(1)
15
express our own preference for the later case of Aranas insofar as its
The Petitioner contends that the facts of this case are analogous to
16
but not of the return flight. The plane crashed while on route from
filed an action for damages against Air Canada in the U.S. District
dates. . . .
The Petitioner avers that the present case falls squarely under the
above ruling because the date and time of his return flight to San
The private respondent for its part invokes the ruling in Butz v.
British Airways,
17
treaty jurisdiction." . . .
..
We agree with the latter case. The place of destination, within the
Francisco. Although the date of the return flight was left open, the
The petitioner submits that the Butz case could not have overruled
Article 28(1).
the parties to the Convention that every contract of carriage has one
of destination."
courts have taken the broad view that the French legal meaning
must govern.
18
In French, he says, the "domicile" of the carrier
19
it was held:
Convention.
20
that:
..
Notably, the domicile of the carrier is only one of the places where
the three other places, to wit, the principal place of business of the
carrier, its place of business where the contract was made, and the
place of destination, the article clearly meant that these three other
tort.
American cases,
21
22
relief . . .
misconduct.
22
23
merely fixes the monetary ceiling for the liability of the carrier
willful misconduct, it can avail itself of the limitations set forth in this
article. But this can be done only if the action has first been
Article 28(1).
III
which states:
CONCLUSION
..
Convention.
March 8,
1971.
24
such ratification, the petitioner will still have to file his complaint
Warsaw Convention.
citizen does not necessarily have the right to sue in his own courts
country.
The Court can only sympathize with the petitioner, who must
prosecute his claims in the United States rather than in his own
to observe at this point that the mere fact that he will have to
litigate in vain. The judicial system of that country in known for its
law.
petitioner. It is so ordered.
vs.
MARTIN, respondents.
DECISION
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
assailing the
Decision
Insurers, Noah’s Ark Sugar Terminal, Noah’s Ark Sugar Building, and
and registered in the name of Mr. Looyuko; and TCT No. 3325, also
by respondent
UCPB the return of the two (2) TCTs (No. 64070 and No. 3325)
return the same and proceeded to have the two (2) pre-signed Real
Martin, together with Ex-Officio Sheriff Lydia G. San Juan and Sheriff
Branch 266, docketed as Civil Case No. 67878. The complaint was
subsequently amended
property; that the approved omnibus credit line applied for by him
that TCTs No. 64070 and No. 3325 be returned to him, but
respondent bank refused to do so; that despite the cancellation of
the omnibus credit line on 21 July 1997, respondent bank had the
April 2000 and 03 May 2000 be enjoined; that the two real estate
fees.
a motion to dismiss
proper filing and docket fees; 2) that the complaint was filed in the
10
granting
11
respondent bank’s
reconsideration
12
Order
13
14
15
trial court and directed the trial court to dismiss Civil Case No. 67878
16
which was
17
18
On 16 June 2003, the Court gave due course to the petition, and
required
19
20
for regional trial courts and municipal trial courts -- the court which
has territorial jurisdiction over the area where the real property or
21
22
likewise the same for the regional and municipal trial courts -- the
court of the place where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs
Rule 4.
23
for cases of the above nature is the primary objective for which said
Appeals,
24
25
26
27
Caluag,
28
real property."
29
this Court
in an hacienda that runs with the land and one that must
..
Ramirez,
30
lies."
31
is more particularly
real action that affects the title to the property. Thus, venue of the
real action is before the court having jurisdiction over the territory in
Laguna.
32
Bank of Lucena
33
is misplaced. Firstly, said case was primarily an
Rule 4 of the Old Civil Procedure and now under Section 1, Rule 4 of
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, does not involve titles to the
Hence, the venue of the plaintiffs’ personal action is the place where
the plaintiff. In the case at bar, the action for cancellation of real
covered by TCTs No. 64070 and No. 3325 over which the bank had
Appeals,
34
it was succinctly stated that the prayer for the
35
An action for
the title to the property. It is, therefore, a real action which should
SO ORDERED.
..
vs.
*
DECISION
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
of the Court
The undisputed facts and issues raised in the lower courts are
Trial Court of Makati City (or "Makati RTC"; Branch 60) in an action
15563.
payment;
registration;
as attorney’s fees;
jurisdiction over the persons of the parties and that venue was
reads:
Court, but it must be emphasized that at that time there was still no
jurisdiction of the Makati Courts, so that cases from this City were
tried and heard at Makati City. With the creation of the Regional
in this City, and cases involving Muntinlupa City residents were all
the latter City where the property is located, as there are now
but no less than five (5) days, otherwise a default judgment might be
Her motion for reconsideration having been denied per order dated
September 28, 2001, petitioner came to this Court [CA] via the
..
instant special civil action for certiorari. She ascribes grave abuse of
respondent judge for "erroneously holding that Civil Case No. 01-164
private respondent.
situated.
2
On August 12, 2002, the CA promulgated its Decision ruling in favor
Regional Trial Court of the place where the real property is located.
was correctly filed with the RTC of the place where the disputed real
property is located.
Petitioner then concludes that the filing of the action for revival of
judgment with the RTC of Muntinlupa City, the place where the
improper venue.
action for revival is a real action, and venue was properly laid with
Thus, the question that must be answered is: where is the proper
after the lapse of five (5) years from entry of judgment and before it
is barred by the statute of limitations, a final and executory
filed.
In Aldeguer v. Gemelo,
court where said judgment was rendered or in the place where the
(Emphasis supplied)
and tried in the proper court which has jurisdiction over the area
xxxx
filed with the court of the place where the real property is located. If
such action does not fall under the category of real actions, it is then
a personal action that may be filed with the court of the place where
and Donnelly
In Aldeguer, what the Court stated was that "[t]he action for the
judgment subject of the action for revival did not involve or affect
The complaint filed in the revival case did not fall under the category
of real actions and, thus, the action necessarily fell under the
..
Petitioner raises before this Court two (2) issues, namely: (a)
and (b) whether the second action for revival of judgment (Civil Case
No. 76166) has already prescribed. To our mind, the first is not a
The Court clearly pointed out that in said case, the issue on whether
an action for revival of judgment is quasi in rem was not yet proper
said sale; register the deed of sale with the Registry of Deeds and
demands, and that the latter was compelled to file the action for
said judgment.
previous judgment. The sole reason for the present action to revive
property.1avvphi1
The present case for revival of judgment being a real action, the
complaint should indeed be filed with the Regional Trial Court of the
The Supreme Court shall define the territory over which a branch
of the Regional Trial Court shall exercise its authority. The territory
and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts over which the said branch may
(Emphasis supplied)1avvphi1
1991. Said law provided for the creation of a branch of the Regional
Muntinlupa City.
petitioner's motion to dismiss; and the CA did not commit any error
are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
..
vs.
appellees,
CONCEPCION, J.:
Bulacan based upon the ground that venue had been improperly
laid.
Sta. Cruz, Marinduque, which was the main asset of the partnership,
Zulueta and his wife Yap Leding sought permission to intervene, still
later, alleging that they are the owners of said fishpond, having
bought one-half (½)of it from Benito Regencia, who, in turn, had
ten (10) days within which to file such pleading as they may deem
February 12, 1962, the Zuluetas filed a motion to dismiss upon the
ground that the complaint states no cause of action; that venue has
action should have been instituted, not in the Court of First Instance
affirmative, upon the ground that the subject matter of this case is
have an interest in said fishpond; that the same has been placed
had the right to bring the action in the court of first instance of that
province.
question it.
The fact that plaintiff prays for the sale of the assets of the
thereof.
the interest Mercader in the fishpond, they, at best, stepped into his
properly laid when the complaint was filed, said venue cannot,
subsequently, become improper in consequence of issues later
authority to hear and decide the case, it can not be divested of that
nature of the action and the issues joined by the original parties
thereto."
aside and the case remanded to the lower court for further
..
vs.
BUENA, J.:
which reads:
Boulevard, Manila;
th
Floor,
less;
th
par.)
8, 4
th
thereto;
obligations.' x x x
"x x x x x x x x x
xxx
..
ceased xxx.'xxx
DAPCO;
"x x x x x x x x x
"PRAYER
contracts; and (c) utilizing and enjoying DAPCO's land and the
improvements thereon, particularly but not limited to standing
crops and the fruits thereof, and for this purpose ordering DOLE to
comply with the restraining order; and after notice and hearing, a
judgement be rendered:
P32 million.
"AND
action;
by DAPCO;
this action;
c] Ordering DOLE to pay DAPCO the annual rental for 1995 pursuant
thereon;
a] Ordering DOLE under all of the causes of action to pay DAPCO the
million;
renewal; and
DOLE filed with the Court of Appeals [CA] a petition for certiorari
held that the complaint filed by DAPCO "is actually a real action,
possession of the land in dispute. Such being the case, venue lies not
the trial court from taking any further action except to hear DOLE's
4
Judging from the
subject of the lease. It bears stressing that DOLE leased the subject
(b) applies to DOLE and the estoppel does not depend on the validity
because DAPCO neither denied the fact that the lands were
being asserted was the rental payment for the year 1995 and the
whether the lease contract remains valid until the alleged renewed
delivering to DAPCO the land, together with all permanent and fixed
the action is real or a personal one. Both DAPCO and DOLE admitted
that the subject property was subjected to CARP. The
transferred to owner-beneficiaries.
longer liable for rental payments for the year 1995 because of the
DOLE was bound by the terms of the lease and is liable for damages
However, considering
rules on venue at the time the complaint was filed governs. When
the complaint was filed on March 15, 1995, venue for personal
and DAR. Whether petitioner is still the owner is best threshed out
in the trial proper rather than resolved in this incidental issue since
REINSTATED.1âwphi1.nêt
SO ORDERED.
..
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, JULITA C. BENEDICTO, and FRANCISCA
BENEDICTO-PAULINO, respondents.
DECISION
The Case
This Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 assails and seeks
of June 20,
2000, December 18, 2000, and March 15, 2001 of the Regional Trial
17.
The Facts
Far East Managers and Investors, Inc. (FEMII) and Universal Equity
his name and in the name of his associates, as trustees, the shares of
stocks of FEMII and UEC with the obligation to hold those shares and
their fruits in trust and for the benefit of Irene to the extent of 65%
as Civil Case No. 3341-17, covered the UEC shares and named
Benedicto's daughter,
to dismiss
over which the Securities and Exchange Commission, not the RTC,
has jurisdiction; (2) venue was improperly laid; and (3) the complaint
Opposition.
Upon Benedicto's motion, both cases were consolidated.
of Gilmia B. Valdez,
Batac, Ilocos Norte and that Irene did not maintain residence in said
place as she in fact only visited the mansion twice in 1999; that she
did not vote in Batac in the 1998 national elections; and that she
Ilocos Norte.
On June 29, 2000, the RTC dismissed both complaints, stating that
these partly constituted "real action," and that Irene did not actually
Reconsideration
8
attaching
10
complaint, the added plaintiffs, all from Ilocos Norte, were Irene's
During the August 25, 2000 hearing, the RTC dictated in open court
11
12
entertaining the
..
13
Irene may
14
denied the motion and reiterated its directive for the two to answer
In said order, the RTC stood pat on its holding on the rule on
any responsive pleading thereto. Pushing its point, the RTC added
the observation that the filing of the amended complaint on July 17,
which, per the June 29, 2000 Order, had not yet become final at the
Following the denial on March 15, 2001 of their motion for the RTC
15
day, they went to the CA via a petition for certiorari, docketed as CA-
G.R. SP No. 64246, seeking to nullify the following RTC orders: the
C. Benedicto."
16
authorizing Affidavit
17
18
preliminary injunction
19
Case Nos. 3341-17 and 3342-17. The fallo of the CA decision reads:
the amended complaints are SET ASIDE for being null and
DISMISSED.
20
assailed decision was denied through the equally assailed June 20,
The Issues
the merits of the trust issue which involves factual and evidentiary
determination, processes not proper in a petition for certiorari
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court; (3) ruling that the amended
time it was filed, there was no more original complaint to amend; (4)
ruling that the respondents did not waive improper venue; and (5)
ruling that petitioner Irene was not a resident of Batac, Ilocos Norte
and that none of the principal parties are residents of Ilocos Norte.
21
We affirm, but not for all the reasons set out in, the CA's decision.
22
and 5
23
formal requirement which the court may motu proprio direct a party
an assurance that the allegations therein made are done in good faith or are true and
correct and not mere speculation. The Court may order the correction of the pleading, if
not verified, or act on the unverified pleading if the attending circumstances are such
that a strict compliance with the rule may be dispensed with in order that the ends of
appellate court.
..
Compliance
25
However, the Court has time and again stressed that the rules on
As has been
27
or principal parties,
28
herself was a principal party in Civil Case No. 3341-17 before the RTC
or where the parties filed the case as a "collective," raising only one
of Clarita Cavile.
29
in Cavile, Francisca and Julita, as petitioners before the CA, had filed
stocks in question.
only. It cannot validly delve into the issue of trust which, under the
30
Case Nos. 3341-17 and 3342-17 in fact have not even reached the
31
properly pertains, at the first instance, to the trial court and not to
one hand, and the Benedicto Group, on the other, the appellate
be here.
the fact that the filing of the amended complaint on July 17, 2000
came after the RTC had ordered with finality the dismissal of the
the said RTC order, the CA failed to take stock of their motion for
32
33
Assayed
against the foregoing perspective, the RTC did not err in admitting
Court notes though that the RTC has not offered an explanation why
W]hat petitioner Alpine filed in Civil Case No. C-20124 was a motion to dismiss, not an
answer. Settled is the rule that a motion to dismiss is not a responsive pleading for
purposes of Section 2, Rule 10. As no responsive pleading had been filed, respondent
could amend her complaint in Civil Case No. C-20124 as a matter of right. Following this
Court's ruling in Breslin v. Luzon Stevedoring Co. considering that respondent has the
..
right to amend her complaint, it is the correlative duty of the trial court to accept the
amended complaint; otherwise, mandamus would lie against it. In other words, the trial
court's duty to admit the amended complaint was purely ministerial. In fact, respondent
through the June 29, 2000 RTC order. It should be pointed out,
however, that the finality of such dismissal order had not set in
when Irene filed the amended complaint on July 17, 2000, she
2000. Thus, when Irene filed the amended complaint on July 17,
2000, the order of dismissal was not yet final, implying that there
complaints.
35
is fixed for the greatest convenience possible of the plaintiff and his
36
meaning "within the time for but before filing the answer to the
complaint,"
37
rejected.
It is the posture of Julita and Francisca that the venue was in this
38
the venue of real actions shall be the proper court which has
39
In the instant case, petitioners are basically asking Benedicto and his
with the Benedicto Group. The fact that FEMII's assets include real
properties does not materially change the nature of the action, for
upon an alleged trust constituted in 1968 and/or 1972. They are not
actions in rem where the actions are against the real properties
40
title to the real properties of FEMII and UEC is not being disputed,
properties.
As to her, Batac, Ilocos Norte is not what Sec. 2, Rule 4 of the Rules
issued sometime in
June 2000 in Batac, Ilocos Norte and in which she indicated her
alone the fact that one can easily secure a basic residence certificate
office and dictate whatever relevant data one desires entered, Irene
procured CTC No. 17019451 and appended the same to her motion
Norte is the proper court venue, asseverate that Batac, Ilocos Norte
..
Rule 3
these Rules. An agent acting in his own name and for the
Rule 4
VENUE OF ACTIONS
and Jose G. Reslin, all from Ilocos Norte, were included as co-
Irene.
difficult.
Sec. 2 of Rule 4 indicates quite clearly that when there is more than
According to the late Justice Jose Y. Feria, "the word 'principal' has
been added [in the uniform procedure rule] in order to prevent the
42
impleaded in the action since the latter would not have the degree
case."
43
Before the RTC in Batac, in Civil Case Nos. 3341-17 and 3342-17,
As earlier stated, no less than the RTC in Batac declared Irene as not
The Court can concede that Irene's three co-plaintiffs are all
beneficiary who must be included in the title of the case and shall be
all the more forceful considering that Irene herself initiated and was
unnecessary.
And this brings us to the final point. Irene was a resident during the
period material of Forbes Park, Makati City. She was not a resident
44
has it
that one can have several residences, if such were the established
fact. The Court will not speculate on the reason why petitioner
Irene, for all the inconvenience and expenses she and her
case be heard and decided by the RTC in Batac. On the heels of the
doubtless to insure, but in vain as it turned out, that the case stays
those who come to court for redress keep this ideal in mind.
and Resolution dated October 17, 2001 and June 20, 2002,
Norte in Civil Case Nos. 3341-17 and 3342-17 on the ground of lack
Orders dated October 9, 2000, December 18, 2000, and March 15,
2001 of the RTC in Civil Case Nos. 3341-17 and 3342-17 are
accordingly ANNULLED and SET ASIDE and said civil cases are
DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
..
vs.
Domingo, respondents.
PUNO, J.:
Petitioner Jose Baritua raises the question of venue in the filing of a
The facts show that on June 26, 1989 private respondent Roy R.
filed with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 53, Resales, Pangasinan a
the J.B. Bus Lines. Private respondent sought to recover actual and
that:
served summons. . . .
respondent was merely temporarily out of the country and did not
the Regional Trial Court, the venue for personal actions is laid down
as follows :
action is commenced.
residence or abode.
which when absent, one has the intention of returning. The word
residence or domicile.
10
This
11
at the time the complaint was filed before the Regional Trial Court of
Resales, Pangasinan.
April 25, 1988 before the complaint was filed on June 26, 1989.
12
13
In said
special power of attorney, private respondent declared that he was
14
..
15
16
There is likewise no showing, much less any allegation, that after the
States continuously and consistently since 1988 until the present has
17
We previously held that:
18
It is fundamental that the situs for bringing real and personal civil
19
The choice of
20
It
21
When the complaint was filed in Rosales, Pangasinan, not one of the
22
although
23
The venue in
venue. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
..
DE BUÑAG, plaintiffs-appellants,
vs.
Court on the ground that the issues raised are pure questions of law.
stated as follows:
estate.
since died.
Rollo).
TAKEN.
II
The first assigned error appears to have merit. The trial court ruled
that members of the same family are quarrel over the estate left by
..
flied in court.
May 3, 1962 and whose part therein was "to exercise full discretion
Carag family, the principal parties in the case. Hence, section 1(j),
Rule 16 of the Revised Rules of Court which provides that a suit
error.
The issue as to whether or not venue was improperly laid with the
The records show that the Subdivision Contract was executed before
same is merely voidable not void (Article 1390 (2) New Civil Code;
SCRA 143).
par. (2) New Civil Code). In effect, the Subdivision Contract is valid
plaintiffs-appellants.
SO ORDERED.
..
vs.
SANCHEZ, J.:
to defendant.
First Cause of Action — P60,845.67, with interest thereon at 1% a month from May 9, 1965 until the full
amount is paid.
Second Cause of Action — P51,952.55, with interest thereon at 1% a month from March 30, 1965
until the full amount is
paid.
Third Cause of Action — P53,973.07, with interest thereon at 1% a month from July 3, 1965 until the
full amount is paid.
Defendant appealed.
provides that such "actions may be commenced and tried where the
defendant or any of the defendants resides or may be found, or
agreement is valid.
he can only be sued in the courts of Manila. We are thus called upon
covering the first two causes of action. The general rule set forth in
residence.
restrictive words which would indicate that Manila and Manila alone
is the venue are totally absent therefrom. We cannot read into that
courts of Manila as tribunals to which they may resort. They did not
N.Y.S. 593, 594. And this, became there the stipulation as to venue is
along lines similar to the present. Said stipulation reads: "In case of
of the Vienna courts." And the ruling is: "By the clause in question
extended by implication."
interest at the rate of one per centum per month. Defendant says
days." The flaw in this argument lies in that the interest and the rate
bear interest at the rate of one per centum (1%) per month from the
..
It has been said that so long as such stipulation does not contravene
not his counsel. It is the litigant, not counsel, who is the judgment
6
The governing law then is Article 2227 of the Civil Code, viz.:
damages.
More important is that this case should not have gone to court. It
complying with his obligations. It is not denied that the rawhide was
In fact, he did not even answer the complaint in the lower court, and
was thus declared in default. Nor does he deny the principal liability.
Add to all these the fact that the writ of attachment issued below
Tat (1969), 28 SCRA 161, 170, we allowed attorneys' fees in the form
be disturbed.
..
LANTIN,
Petitioners,
- versus -
Present:
DEVELOPMENT BANK,
BATANGAS,
Respondents.
CARPIO,
CARPIO MORALES,
TINGA, and
Promulgated:
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
DECISION
QUISUMBING, J.:
May 15, 20031[1] and September 15, 20032[2] in Civil Case No.
RTC of Lipa City, Batangas. Petitioners alleged that only their peso
loans were covered by the mortgages and that these had already
been fully paid, hence, the mortgages should have been discharged.
payment of their dollar loans as the mortgages did not cover those
loans.
Private respondents moved to dismiss the complaint on
denied and the lower court held that the previous order did not
touch upon the validity of the loan documents but merely ruled on
..
DEFINITE PLACE.
II
III
PROCEDURE.
IV
since the complaint involves several causes of action which did not
arise solely from or connected with the loan documents, the cited
petitioners did not assail the loan documents, and the issue of
by the venue stipulation. They also aver that the venue stipulation
was not contrary to the doctrine in Unimasters,5[5] which requires
language to the effect that the parties agree that the venue of
venue of actions shall not apply where the parties, before the filing
..
(Emphasis supplied.)
supplied.)
Clearly, the words “exclusively” and “waiving for this purpose any
requirements.
securing their peso loans. They only assailed the terms and
that their peso loans had already been paid thus the mortgages
also cover the dollar loans, arose out of the said loan documents,
find that the respondent judge did not commit grave abuse of
orders dated May 15, 2003 and September 15, 2003 of the Regional
Trial Court of Lipa City, Batangas, in Civil Case No. 2002-0555 are
AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
..
vs.
DECISION
(the
year franchise to adopt and use the "Uniwide Family Store System"
Article 10.2
of the
month.
in
favor of UHI assigning all their rights and interests over Cruz’s
to send him a letter of even date for the settlement thereof in five
remained unsettled.
paid.
answerable for.
on the ground of
improper venue, he invoking Article 27.5 of the agreement which
reads:
other venue.
(Emphasis supplied)
of December
Hence, the present petition before this Court, raising the sole legal
issue of:
STIPULATION.
10
(Underscoring supplied)
mention of FPC and USWCI, and neither are the two parties thereto,
venue."
supplied)
same rule which allows parties, before the filing of the action, to
11
other venues.
parties one of which does not arise out of the contract where the
bar, may be brought before other venues provided that such other
cause of action falls within the jurisdiction of the court and the
12
Hence, the general rule on venue applies – that the complaint may
13
are not based on a breach of the agreement between UHI and Cruz.
obligations to the assignors FPC and USWCI. Thus, any action arising
Corporation v. Monasterio
14
enlightens:
of justice.
15
(Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
16
(Underscoring supplied)
Case No. 04-0278 is SET ASIDE. The case is REMANDED to said court
SO ORDERED.