5. Venue.docx

TOPIC: VENUE VIRGILIO C. BRIONES vs. CA and CASH ASIA CREDIT CORP. G.R. No. 204444 | January 14, 2015 | Perlas-Bernabe, J.: Digested By: Acabado, Mark Nico, A. DOCTRINE: Where the complaint assails only the terms, conditions, and/or coverage of a written instrument, and not its validity, the exclusive venue stipulation therein shall be binding on the parties and the complaint may be properly dismissed on the ground of improper venue. Conversely, where the complaint directly assails the validity of the written instrument itself, the plaintiff is not bound by the exclusive venue stipulation, and the complaint should be filed in accordance with the general rules on venue. FACTS: Real action. No improper venue. The contract which contained the restriction on venue was being assailed. Thus, plaintiff is not bound by it and may file the case as per GR on venue.  Briones is the owner of a parcel of land covered by a TCT. He discovered from his sister that his property had been foreclosed, and a writ of possession over it had been issued to Cash Asia.  Upon investigation, he discovered that he had purportedly executed a Promissory Note and a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage over the property in favor of Cash Asia, to obtain a Php 3.5million loan. The loan remained unpaid and the property was foreclosed.  Briones filed a complaint before the RTC of Manila for nullification of the loan and mortgage contracts, and the foreclosure. He also prayed for the cancellation of the TCT in Cash Asia’s name and damages. He assailed the validity of the said contracts and alleged that his signatures had been forged.  He alleged that he had never contracted any loans from Cash Asia, and had in fact, been living and working in Vietnam since October 31, 2007.  The only time he returned to the Philippines was from December 28, 2007 to January 3, 2008 for the holidays, and he was unaware of any loan agreement with Cash Asia.  Cash Asia filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of improper venue. The venue stipulation in the contracts stated that all actions were to be brought before the Makati courts.  Briones opposed stating that the venue stipulation did not cover him as he was never a party to the contracts.  RTC denied the motion to dismiss. CA reversed and dismissed Briones’ complaint for improper venue.

ISSUE: W/N Briones’ complaint should be dismissed for improper venue. HELD: NO.  Pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules of Court, the general rule is that the venue of real actions is the court having jurisdiction over the area where the real property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated. The venue of personal actions is the court having jurisdiction where the plaintiff or the defendant resides, at the election of the plaintiff.  The exception is that the parties may, through a written instrument, either introduce another venue where actions arising therefrom may be filed, or restrict the filing of said actions to a certain, exclusive venue.  Regarding stipulations on venue, jurisprudence instructs that such stipulation be shown to be exclusive.  In the absence of 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, the stipulation should be deemed as merely an agreement on an additional forum, not as limiting venue to the specified place.  Where the complaint assails only the terms, conditions, and/or coverage of a written instrument, and not its validity, the exclusive venue stipulation therein shall be binding on the parties and the complaint may be properly dismissed on the ground of improper venue.  Conversely, where the complaint directly assails the validity of the written instrument itself, the plaintiff is not bound by the exclusive venue stipulation, and the complaint should be filed in accordance with the general rules on venue.  It would be inherently consistent for a complaint of this nature to recognize the exclusive venue stipulation when it, in fact, precisely assails the validity of the instrument in which such stipulation is contained. PETITION IS GRANTED. TOPIC: VENUE PAGLAUM MANAGEMENT & DEVELOPMENT CORP. and HEALTH MARKETING TECHNOLOGIES, INC. vs. UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, NOTARY PUBLIC JOHN DOE, and REGISTER OF DEEDS OF CEBU G.R. No. 179018 | June 18, 2012 | Sereno, J.: Digested By: Acabado, Mark Nico, A.

DOCTRINE: A venue stipulation must contain words that show exclusivity or restrictiveness. In the absence of qualifying or restrictive words, the stipulation is deemed merely as an agreement on an additional forum, not a limitation on venue. FACTS: Real action. Amended agreement which contained the venue restriction is binding. Thus, it can only be filed in Makati.  Petitioner Paglaum owns 3 titled parcels of land in Cebu. These lands are co-owned by Benjamin Dy, president of petitioner HealthTech, and his mother and siblings.  Union Bank extended HealthTech a credit line of Php 10 million. Paglaum executed 3 REMs on HealthTech’s behalf, in favor of Union Bank.  2 were executed in February 1994, and contained a venue stipulation stating that all actions arising therefrom shall be “in Cebu City, Metro Manila, or in the place where any of the mortgaged properties is located, at the absolute option of the mortgagee the xxxxxxxxxxxxx any other venue.”  3rd mortgage contract, executed in April 1998, stipulated that the venue for all actions shall be “the place where any of the mortgaged properties is located, at the absolute option of the mortgagee, the parties hereto waiving any other venue.”  The credit line was subsequently renewed and increased, until the debt reached Php 36.5 million.  As a result of the 1997 Asian financial crisis, HealthTech had difficulty meeting its obligations with Union Bank, and thus both parties entered into a Restructuring Agreement in December 1998.  The Restructuring Agreement stipulated that all actions “arising out of or connected with this Restructuring Agreement, the Note, the Collateral and any and all related documents shall be in Makati City, both parties waiving any other venue.”  The agreement also defined the Collaterals as referring to the three mortgage contracts.  Due to HealthTech being unable to pay, Union Bank eventually extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgaged properties. The bank, as sole bidder in the auction sale, was issued a Certificate of Sale and later sought to consolidate its title.  HealthTech filed a complaint before the RTCMakati to annul the sale and titles. It also sought the issuance of a TRO and a writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin Union Bank from exercising acts of ownership over the properties.  Union Bank filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, and lack of authority of the person who signed the complaint. The RTC granted and dismissed the case.

 



The CA affirmed the RTC’s decision. Petitioners argue that venue was properly laid, as the Restructuring Agreement governs the choice of venue between the parites. Any agreement on choice of venue must be interpreted with the convenience of the parties in mind, and any obscurity therein was caused by Union Bank. Respondent bank contends that the Restructuring Agreement applies only to the loan contract, not the mortgage, and the mortgage contracts clearly state that the mortgagee has the exclusive option as to venue.

ISSUE: W/N Makati City is the proper venue to assail the foreclosure of the real estate mortgage HELD: YES.  An action to annul a REM foreclosure sale is a real action. Hence, the filing and trial thereof is governed by Sections 1 and 3 of Rule 4.  Real actions shall be commenced and tried in the court having jurisdiction over the area where the property is situated. However, the parties may previously and validly agree in writing on an exclusive venue.  A venue stipulation must contain words that show exclusivity or restrictiveness. In the absence of qualifying or restrictive words, the stipulation is deemed merely as an agreement on an additional forum, not a limitation on venue.  The venue stipulation in the Restructuring Agreement is controlling. The phrase “waiving any other venue” clearly shows the exclusive choice of Makati City as the venue for actions arising out of or in connection with the Restructuring Agreement and the collaterals.  Even considering the venue stipulations in the mortgage contracts, the same were neither exclusive nor restrictive.  The 1994 contracts initially contained the phrase “the parties hereto waiving any other venue”, but the same was stricken off from the final executed contract. Hence, in the absence of such restriction, the venue stipulation is deemed only an agreement on an additional forum. PETITION IS GRANTED. TOPIC: VENUE THEODORE and NANCY ANG, represented by ELDRIGE ACERON vs. SPS. ALAN and EM ANG G.R. No. 186993 | August 22, 2012 | Reyes, J.: Digested By: Acabado, Mark Nico, A.

DOCTRINE: Either the plaintiff or the defendant must be residents of the place where the action has been instituted at the time the action is commenced. Where the plaintiff does not reside in the Philippines, the action may only be filed in the court of the place where the defendant resides. FACTS: Personal action for collection. Agent/appointee’s residence is not relevant in choosing venue because he is not the real party in interest that stands to be benefited or injured by the resolution of the case. Since the principals are in USA, MTD of respondent is granted for improper venue.  In 1992, Respondent spouses obtained a loan of US$300,000 from petitioners Theodore and Nancy Ang, and executed a promissory note which stipulated a 10% per annum interest rate.  In 2006, petitioners sent the spouses a demand letter to pay their debt, which had amounted to US$719,671.23 over the years. The spouses still failed to pay.  Petitioners, who were residing in the United States, executed an SPA in favor of Atty. Aceron, for the purpose of filing an action against the respondents.  Atty. Aceron filed a collection suit with the RTCQuezon City against the respondents.  Respondents moved to dismiss on the grounds of improper venue and prescription. They asserted that the complaint may only be filed in the court having jurisdiction over the place where they (Bacolod City) or the petitioners reside (Los Angeles, California).  The RTC denied the motion. Since Atty. Aceron was representing the petitioners as plaintiff, the venue of the action may lie in the place of his residence, i.e., Quezon City.  The CA annulled the RTC’s decision, holding that the proper venue was in Bacolod – the place of residence of the petitioners’ attorney-in-fact being of no moment in ascertaining venue of the case. What should be considered are the residences of the real parties-in-interest to the case. ISSUE: W/N venue was properly laid in the residence of the plaintiffs’ representative (RTC-Quezon City) HELD: NO.  In personal actions, the plaintiff’s options as to venue are (a) the place where he or any of them resides, or (b) the place where the defendant or any of them resides or may be found.  Thus, either the plaintiff or the defendant must be residents of the place where the action has been instituted at the time the action is commenced.  Where the plaintiff does not reside in the Philippines, the action may only be filed in the











court of the place where the defendant resides. Atty. Aceron is only the petitioners’ attorney-infact, and not a real party in interest, thus his residence is immaterial to the venue of the filing of the complaint. His appointment does not mean that he is subrogated into the rights of petitioners and ought to be considered a real party in interest who would stand to be benefited or injured by the resolution of the case. The rules on venue, like the other procedural rules, are designed to insure a just and orderly administration of justice or the impartial and evenhanded determination of every action and proceeding. This objective will not be attained if the plaintiff is given unrestricted freedom to choose the court where he may file his complaint or petition. The choice of venue should not be left to the plaintiff's whim or caprice. He may be impelled by some ulterior motivation in choosing to file a case in a particular court even if not allowed by the rules on venue.

PETITION IS GRANTED. TOPIC: VENUE GOLDEN ARCHES DEVELOPMENT CORP. vs. ST. FRANCIS SQUARE HOLDINGS G.R. No. 183843 | January 19, 2011 | Carpio Morales, J.: Digested By: Acabado, Mark Nico, A. DOCTRINE: The plaintiff’s actual residence, not residence on record, determines where venue properly lies. The rules on venue take into consideration both the plaintiff’s convenience and the orderly administration of justice. FACTS: Personal action for breach of contract. Venue for corporations are where its principal or head office is situated. Here, St. Francis filed with the proper venue.  In June 1991, Golden Arches entered into a lease contract over a property owned by ASB Holdings in Mandaluyong City. The contract was set to expire in February 2008.  In November 2006, Golden Arches informed St. Francis (ASB’s successor-in-interest) if its intention to discontinue the lease.  When negotiations failed, St. Francis filed an action for breach of contract before the RTCMandaluyong.  Golden Arches moved to dismiss for lack of cause of action and improper venue. It argued that St.





Francis’ principal address is in Makati as reflected in the SEC’s records as of 2007. St. Frances contended that it had already closed down its Makati office in 2005, and had since moved to Mandaluyong, which Golden Arches was already aware of. The RTC-Mandaluyong denied the motion. The CA affirmed.

ISSUE: W/N the venue was properly laid HELD: YES.  Venue, in personal actions, is fixed for the greatest possible convenience of the plaintiff and his witnesses, to promote the ends of justice.  A complaint for enforcement of contractual provisions and recovery of damages is a personal action, which may thus be filed in the place where the plaintiff resides. With respect to a domestic corporation, such residence refers to the place where its principal office is located, as stated in its articles of incorporation.  Petitioner’s own letters addressed to St. Francis indicate the latter’s address as being in Mandaluyong, just as St Francis’ replies prior to filing indicate the same address.  Hence, Golden Arches had already been put on notice that at the time of the filing of the complaint, St. Francis’ business address was in Mandaluyong.  Even though St. Francis’ SEC records indicated a different business address, Mandaluyong, where its actual “residence” or principal office was located at the time of filing, controls.  Section 2, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court, authorizes the plaintiff to make a choice of venue for personal actions – whether to file the complaint in the place where he resides or where defendant resides. Such choice is the controlling factor in determining venue for cases.  Respondent’s purpose in filing the complaint in Mandaluyong where it holds its principal office is obviously for its convenience and for orderly administration of justice. PETITION IS GRANTED. TOPIC: VENUE IRENE MARCOS-ARANETA, DANIEL RUBIO, ORLANDO RESLIN, and JOSE RESLIN vs. CA, JULITA BENEDICTO, and FRANCISCA BENEDICTO-PAULINO G.R. No. 154096 | August 22, 2008 | Velasco, JR., J.: Digested By: Acabado, Mark Nico, A. DOCTRINE:

(i)

(ii)

Where the defendant failed to either file a motion to dismiss on the ground of improper venue, or to include such ground as an affirmative defense, he is deemed to have waived his right to object to improper venue. In personal actions where there is more than one plaintiff or defendant, venue shall be the place where any of the principal plaintiffs or defendants resides. “Principal” plaintiff or defendant refers to the real party-in-interest, not to minor parties impleaded who have little to no interest in the case.

FACTS: Improper venue. Should be in Makati, not Batac, Ilocos Norte.  Ambassador Benedicto, and his business associates, organized Far East Managers and Investors, Inc. (FEMII) in 1968 and Universal Equity Corporation (UEC) in 1971.  Benedicto, as trustor, placed in his name and in the name of his associates, as trustees, shares of stocks in these corporations, to hold such shares and their fruits in trust and for the benefit of Irene, to the extent of 65% of such shares.  Years later, petitioner Irene demanded reconveyance of the 65%, but the Benedicto Group refused.  In 2000, Irene filed two complaints before the RTCBatac, Ilocos Norte for conveyance of shares of stock against the Benedicto Group.  The Benedicto (later substituted by his wife Julita after his death) and Francisca moved to dismiss on the grounds that (a) the cases involved an intracorporate dispute that the SEC had jurisdiction over, (b) venue was improperly laid, and (c) the complaint failed to state a cause of action as Irene, as beneficiary of the purported trust, never alleged that she had accepted the trust created in her favor.  To bolster the contention that the venue had been improperly laid, Benedito and Francisca submitted joint affidavits of 4 individuals which attested that: o They were employed as household staff at the Marcos Mansion in Batac, Ilocos Norte. o Irene did not maintain residence therein – in fact, she only visited the mansion twice in 1999. o She did not vote in Batac in the 1998 elections. o She was actually staying at her husband’s house in Makati City.  On the other hand, Irene presented her CTC to support her claimed residency in Batac.  RTC-Batac dismissed both complaints for improper venue. It declared Irene as not being a resident of Batac, but actually residing in Forbes Park, Makati.  After filing a motion for reconsideration, Irene filed a motion to admit amended complaint, with a copy

 





 



of the complaint which had been amended to include the other petitioners as added plaintiffs. These plaintiffs, all from Ilocos Norte, were supposedly her new trustees. The RTC denied the motion for reconsideration, but admitted the amended complaint. It stated that the inclusion of additional plaintiffs, one of whom was a resident of Batac, cured the defect of improper venue. Respondents moved to dismiss the amended complaint, but the same was denied as it was Irene’s right as plaintiff to amend her complaints absent any responsive pleading thereto. Respondents filed an Answer and also filed a petition for certiorari with the CA to annul the RTC’s orders. The CA set aside the RTC’s orders and dismissed the amended complaints. Hence this petition. Petitioners argue that: o Respondents, by their acts of filing numerous pleadings, were effectively precluded from raising the matter of improper venue and had waived such objection. o Venue was properly laid because one of the plaintiffs is a resident of Batac, Ilocos Norte. Respondents on the other hand, argue that venue is improper because the case partakes of a real action involving real properties outside of the RTCBatac’s territorial jurisdiction.













 ISSUE: (i) W/N the objection to improper venue had been waived by respondents (ii) W/N the suit is a real action outside of the territorial jurisdiction of the RTC-Batac (iii) W/N venue had been properly laid HELD: (i) NO.  Venue concerns a rule of procedure. In personal actions, it is fixed for the greatest convenience possible of the plaintiff and his witnesses.  Where the defendant failed to either file a motion to dismiss on the ground of improper venue, or to include such ground as an affirmative defense, he is deemed to have waived his right to object to improper venue.  Respondents here raised the ground at the earliest time possible in their respective motions to dismiss.  They reiterated the same in their answers to the amended complaints, and then again in their petition for certiorari before the CA.  Respondents never waived their right to object to improper venue. (ii)

NO.

Real actions are those that affect title to or possession of real property, or interest therein. In a personal action, the plaintiff seeks recovery of personal property, the enforcement of a contract, or the recovery of damages. The venue of real actions shall be the court having jurisdiction over the area wherein the real property, or a part thereof, is situated. The venue of personal actions lies with the court where either the plaintiff, or any of the principal plaintiffs, or the defendant, or any of the principal defendants resides. The case is not a real action involving real properties located outside of the territorial jurisdiction of RTC-Batac. Petitioners seek to make the Benedicto Group acknowledge holding in trust Irene’s purported 65% stock ownership of FEMII and UEC, and to execute in her favor the necessary deed of conveyance thereof. The fact that FEMIIs assets include real properties does not materially change the nature of the action, for the ownership interest of a stockholder over corporate assets is only inchoate as it is the corporation, as a juridical person, which solely owns such assets. The present suit is clearly an action in personam, being an action against respondents on the basis of their alleged personal liability by virtue of the alleged trust. It is not an action in rem where the suit is against real property instead of persons. Possession or title to the real properties of FEMII and UEC were never disputed.

(iii) NO.  The suit being a personal action, venue was improperly laid in RTC-Batac.  The fact that Irene procured a CTC indicating her address as being in Batac is of no moment, it being a simple matter to easily secure at any time, and to have it dictate whatever relevant data one desires.  Nor is the argument that Batac is where one of the principal plaintiffs, included in the amended complaint, resides.  It is necessary to determine the status of Irene’s co-plaintiffs first before passing upon the issue of improper venue.  Pursuant to Section 2 of Rule 3, it is clear that the real party-in-interest plaintiff is Irene. She, as the alleged beneficiary of the trust, stands to be benefited or injured by the resolution of the suit.  On the other hand, her co-plaintiffs were included in the amended complaint as her new designated trustees. Under Section 3 of Rule 3, as trustees, the can only serve as mere representatives of Irene.  Section 2 of Rule 4 clearly states that where there is more than one plaintiff in a personal action,







the residences of the principal parties shall be the basis for determining proper venue. According to the late Justice Feria, the word “principal” had been added in order to prevent the plaintiff from choosing the residence of a minor plaintiff or defendant as the venue. Irene is undisputedly the principal plaintiff, as she is the only real party-in-interest plaintiff. This is bolstered by the fact that she was the one who initiated and actively prosecuted the actions. Hence the civil cases should have been filed where she or any of the Benedicto Group resides.

PETITION IS GRANTED.