TOPIC: VENUE  Cash Asia filed a Motion to Dismiss on the

ground of improper venue. The venue

VIRGILIO C. BRIONES vs. CA and CASH stipulation in the contracts stated that all
ASIA CREDIT CORP. actions were to be brought before the
G.R. No. 204444 | January 14, 2015 | Perlas- Makati courts.
Bernabe, J.:  Briones opposed stating that the venue
stipulation did not cover him as he was
Digested By: Acabado, Mark Nico, A. never a party to the contracts.
 RTC denied the motion to dismiss. CA
DOCTRINE: Where the complaint assails only reversed and dismissed Briones’
the terms, conditions, and/or coverage of a complaint for improper venue.
written instrument, and not its validity, the
exclusive venue stipulation therein shall be ISSUE: W/N Briones’ complaint should be
binding on the parties and the complaint may be dismissed for improper venue.
properly dismissed on the ground of improper
venue. HELD: NO.
Conversely, where the complaint directly assails  Pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules of Court,
the validity of the written instrument itself, the the general rule is that the venue of real
plaintiff is not bound by the exclusive venue actions is the court having jurisdiction over
stipulation, and the complaint should be filed in the area where the real property involved,
accordance with the general rules on venue. or a portion thereof, is situated. The venue
of personal actions is the court having
FACTS: jurisdiction where the plaintiff or the
 Briones is the owner of a parcel of land defendant resides, at the election of the
covered by a TCT. He discovered from his plaintiff.
sister that his property had been  The exception is that the parties may,
foreclosed, and a writ of possession over it through a written instrument, either
had been issued to Cash Asia. introduce another venue where actions
 Upon investigation, he discovered that he arising therefrom may be filed, or restrict
had purportedly executed a Promissory the filing of said actions to a certain,
Note and a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage exclusive venue.
over the property in favor of Cash Asia, to  Regarding stipulations on venue,
obtain a Php 3.5million loan. The loan jurisprudence instructs that such
remained unpaid and the property was stipulation be shown to be exclusive.
foreclosed.  In the absence of qualifying or restrictive
 Briones filed a complaint before the RTC words such as "exclusively," "waiving for
of Manila for nullification of the loan and this purpose any other venue," "shall only"
mortgage contracts, and the foreclosure. preceding the designation of venue, "to
He also prayed for the cancellation of the the exclusion of the other courts," or
TCT in Cash Asia’s name and damages. words of similar import, the stipulation
He assailed the validity of the said should be deemed as merely an
contracts and alleged that his signatures agreement on an additional forum, not as
had been forged. limiting venue to the specified place.
 He alleged that he had never contracted  Where the complaint assails only the
any loans from Cash Asia, and had in fact, terms, conditions, and/or coverage of a
been living and working in Vietnam since written instrument, and not its validity,
October 31, 2007. the exclusive venue stipulation therein
 The only time he returned to the shall be binding on the parties and the
Philippines was from December 28, 2007 complaint may be properly dismissed
to January 3, 2008 for the holidays, and on the ground of improper venue.
he was unaware of any loan agreement
with Cash Asia.
  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 inconsistent 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.
 parties entered into a Restructuring
TOPIC: VENUE Agreement in December 1998.
 The Restructuring Agreement stipulated
PAGLAUM MANAGEMENT & DEVELOPMENT that all actions “arising out of or
CORP. and HEALTH MARKETING connected with this Restructuring
TECHNOLOGIES, INC. vs. UNION BANK OF Agreement, the Note, the Collateral and
THE PHILIPPINES, NOTARY PUBLIC JOHN any and all related documents shall be
DOE, and REGISTER OF DEEDS OF CEBU in Makati City, both parties waiving any
G.R. No. 179018 | June 18, 2012 | Sereno, J.: other venue.”
 The agreement also defined the
Digested By: Acabado, Mark Nico, A. Collaterals as referring to the three
mortgage contracts.
DOCTRINE: A venue stipulation must contain  Due to HealthTech being unable to pay,
words that show exclusivity or restrictiveness. In Union Bank eventually extrajudicially
the absence of qualifying or restrictive words, foreclosed the mortgaged properties. The
the stipulation is deemed merely as an bank, as sole bidder in the auction sale,
agreement on an additional forum, not a was issued a Certificate of Sale and later
limitation on venue. sought to consolidate its title.
 HealthTech filed a complaint before the
FACTS: RTC-Makati to annul the sale and titles. It
 Petitioner Paglaum owns three titled also sought the issuance of a TRO and a
parcels of land in Cebu. These lands are writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin
co-owned by Benjamin Dy, president of Union Bank from exercising acts of
petitioner HealthTech, and his mother and ownership over the properties.
siblings.  Union Bank filed a motion to dismiss for
 Union Bank extended HealthTech a credit lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, and
line of Php 10 million. Paglaum executed lack of authority of the person who signed
three real estate mortgages on the complaint. The RTC granted and
HealthTech’s behalf, in favor of Union dismissed the case.
Bank.  The CA affirmed the RTC’s decision.
 Two were executed in February 1994, and  Petitioners argue that venue was properly
contained a venue stipulation stating that laid, as the Restructuring Agreement
all actions arising therefrom shall be “in governs the choice of venue between
Cebu City, Metro Manila, or in the place the parties. Any agreement on choice
where any of the mortgaged properties of venue must be interpreted with the
is located, at the absolute option of the convenience of the parties in mind, and
mortgagee the xxxxxxxxxxxxx any any obscurity therein was caused by
other venue.” Union Bank.
 The third mortgage contract, executed in  Respondent bank contends that the
April 1998, stipulated that the venue for all Restructuring Agreement applies only
actions shall be “the place where any of to the loan contract, not the mortgage,
the mortgaged properties is located, at and the mortgage contracts clearly
the absolute option of the mortgagee, state that the mortgagee has the
the parties hereto waiving any other exclusive option as to venue.
venue.”
 The credit line was subsequently renewed ISSUE: W/N Makati City is the proper venue to
and increased, until the debt reached Php assail the foreclosure of the real estate
36.5 million. mortgage
 As a result of the 1997 Asian financial
crisis, HealthTech had difficulty meeting its HELD: YES.
obligations with Union Bank, and thus both
  An action to annul a real estate mortgage
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 What should be considered are the
residences of the real parties-in-interest to
THEODORE and NANCY ANG, represented the case.
by ELDRIGE ACERON vs. SPS. ALAN and
EM ANG ISSUE: W/N venue was properly laid in the
G.R. No. 186993 | August 22, 2012 | Reyes, J.: residence of the plaintiffs’ representative (RTC-
Quezon City)
Digested By: Acabado, Mark Nico, A.
HELD: NO.
DOCTRINE: Either the plaintiff or the defendant  In personal actions, the plaintiff’s
must be residents of the place where the action options as to venue are (a) the place
has been instituted at the time the action is where he or any of them resides, or (b)
commenced. Where the plaintiff does not reside the place where the defendant or any of
in the Philippines, the action may only be filed in them resides or may be found.
the court of the place where the defendant  Thus, either the plaintiff or the
resides. defendant must be residents of the
place where the action has been
instituted at the time the action is
FACTS:
commenced.
 In 1992, Respondent spouses obtained a
 Where the plaintiff does not reside in
loan of US$300,000 from petitioners
the Philippines, the action may only
Theodore and Nancy Ang, and executed a
be filed in the court of the place
promissory note which stipulated a 10%
where the defendant resides.
per annum interest rate.
 Atty. Aceron is only the petitioners’
 In 2006, petitioners sent the spouses a
attorney-in-fact, and not a real party
demand letter to pay their debt, which had
in interest, thus his residence is
amounted to US$719,671.23 over the
immaterial to the venue of the filing
years. The spouses still failed to pay.
of the complaint.
 Petitioners, who were residing in the
 His appointment does not mean that he
United States, executed an SPA in favor
is subrogated into the rights of
of Atty. Aceron, for the purpose of filing an
petitioners and ought to be considered a
action against the respondents.
real party in interest who would stand to
 Atty. Aceron filed a collection suit with the
be benefited or injured by the resolution
RTC-Quezon City against the
of the case.
respondents.
 The rules on venue, like the other
 Respondents moved to dismiss on the
procedural rules, are designed to insure
grounds of improper venue and
a just and orderly administration of
prescription. They asserted that the
justice or the impartial and even-handed
complaint may only be filed in the court
determination of every action and
having jurisdiction over the place where
proceeding.
they (Bacolod City) or the petitioners
 This objective will not be attained if the
reside (Los Angeles, California).
plaintiff is given unrestricted freedom to
 The RTC denied the motion. Since Atty.
choose the court where he may file his
Aceron was representing the
complaint or petition.
petitioners as plaintiff, the venue of the
 The choice of venue should not be left
action may lie in the place of his
to the plaintiff's whim or caprice. He may
residence, i.e., Quezon City.
be impelled by some ulterior motivation
 The CA annulled the RTC’s decision,
in choosing to file a case in a particular
holding that the proper venue was in
court even if not allowed by the rules on
Bacolod – the place of residence of the
venue.
petitioners’ attorney-in-fact being of no
moment in ascertaining venue of the case.
PETITION IS GRANTED. the place where the plaintiff resides. With
TOPIC: VENUE respect to a domestic corporation, such
residence refers to the place where its
GOLDEN ARCHES DEVELOPMENT CORP. principal office is located, as stated in its
vs. ST. FRANCIS SQUARE HOLDINGS articles of incorporation.
G.R. No. 183843 | January 19, 2011 | Carpio  Petitioner’s own letters addressed to St.
Morales, J.: Francis indicate the latter’s address as
being in Mandaluyong, just as St Francis’
Digested By: Acabado, Mark Nico, A. replies prior to filing indicate the same
address.
DOCTRINE: The plaintiff’s actual residence, not  Hence, Golden Arches had already been
residence on record, determines where venue put on notice that at the time of the filing of
properly lies. The rules on venue take into the complaint, St. Francis’ business
consideration both the plaintiff’s convenience address was in Mandaluyong.
and the orderly administration of justice.  Even though St. Francis’ SEC records
indicated a different business address,
FACTS: Mandaluyong, where its actual
 In June 1991, Golden Arches entered into “residence” or principal office was
a lease contract over a property owned by located at the time of filing, controls.
ASB Holdings in Mandaluyong City. The  Section 2, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court,
contract was set to expire in February authorizes the plaintiff to make a choice of
2008. venue for personal actions – whether to
 In November 2006, Golden Arches file the complaint in the place where he
informed St. Francis (ASB’s successor-in- resides or where defendant resides. Such
interest) of its intention to discontinue the choice is the controlling factor in
lease. determining venue for cases.
 When negotiations failed, St. Francis filed  Respondent’s purpose in filing the
an action for breach of contract before the complaint in Mandaluyong where it holds
RTC-Mandaluyong. its principal office is obviously for its
 Golden Arches moved to dismiss for lack convenience and for orderly administration
of cause of action and improper venue. It of justice.
argued that St. Francis’ principal address
is in Makati as reflected in the SEC’s PETITION IS GRANTED.
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
TOPIC: VENUE o Irene did not maintain residence therein –
in fact, she only visited the mansion twice
IRENE MARCOS-ARANETA, DANIEL RUBIO, in 1999.
ORLANDO RESLIN, and JOSE RESLIN vs. CA, o She did not vote in Batac in the 1998
JULITA BENEDICTO, and FRANCISCA elections.
BENEDICTO-PAULINO o She was actually staying at her
G.R. No. 154096 | August 22, 2008 | Velasco, JR., J.: husband’s house in Makati City.
 On the other hand, Irene presented her CTC to
Digested By: Acabado, Mark Nico, A. support her claimed residency in Batac.
 RTC-Batac dismissed both complaints for
DOCTRINE: improper venue. It declared Irene as not
(i) Where the defendant failed to either file a being a resident of Batac, but actually
motion to dismiss on the ground of improper residing in Forbes Park, Makati.
venue, or to include such ground as an  After filing a motion for reconsideration, Irene
affirmative defense, he is deemed to have filed a motion to admit amended complaint,
waived his right to object to improper venue. with a copy of the complaint which had been
(ii) In personal actions where there is more than amended to include the other petitioners as
one plaintiff or defendant, venue shall be the added plaintiffs.
place where any of the principal plaintiffs or
 These plaintiffs, all from Ilocos Norte, were
defendants resides. “Principal” plaintiff or
supposedly her new trustees.
defendant refers to the real party-in-interest, not
 The RTC denied the motion for
to minor parties impleaded who have little to no
reconsideration, but admitted the amended
interest in the case.
complaint. It stated that the inclusion of
additional plaintiffs, one of whom was a
FACTS:
resident of Batac, cured the defect of improper
 Ambassador Benedicto, and his business
venue.
associates, organized Far East Managers and
 Respondents moved to dismiss the amended
Investors, Inc. (FEMII) in 1968 and Universal
complaint, but the same was denied as it was
Equity Corporation (UEC) in 1971.
Irene’s right as plaintiff to amend her
 Benedicto, as trustor, placed in his name and
complaints absent any responsive pleading
in the name of his associates, as trustees,
thereto.
shares of stocks in these corporations, to hold
 Respondents filed an Answer and also filed a
such shares and their fruits in trust and for the
petition for certiorari with the CA to annul the
benefit of Irene, to the extent of 65% of such
RTC’s orders.
shares.
 The CA set aside the RTC’s orders and
 Years later, petitioner Irene demanded
dismissed the amended complaints. Hence this
reconveyance of the 65%, but the Benedicto
petition.
Group refused.
 Petitioners argue that:
 In 2000, Irene filed two complaints before the
o Respondents, by their acts of filing
RTC-Batac, Ilocos Norte for conveyance of
shares of stock against the Benedicto Group. numerous pleadings, were effectively
precluded from raising the matter of
 The Benedicto (later substituted by his wife
improper venue and had waived such
Julita after his death) and Francisca moved to
objection.
dismiss on the grounds that (a) the cases
o Venue was properly laid because one of
involved an intra-corporate dispute that the
SEC had jurisdiction over, (b) venue was the plaintiffs is a resident of Batac, Ilocos
improperly laid, and (c) the complaint failed to Norte.
state a cause of action as Irene, as beneficiary  Respondents on the other hand, argue that
of the purported trust, never alleged that she venue is improper because the case partakes
had accepted the trust created in her favor. of a real action involving real properties outside
 To bolster the contention that the venue had of the RTC-Batac’s territorial jurisdiction.
been improperly laid, Benedito and Francisca
submitted joint affidavits of four (4) individuals ISSUE:
which attested that: (i) W/N the objection to improper venue had been
o They were employed as household staff waived by respondents
(ii) W/N the suit is a real action outside of the
at the Marcos Mansion in Batac, Ilocos
territorial jurisdiction of the RTC-Batac
Norte.
(iii) W/N venue had been properly laid
 Possession or title to the real properties of
FEMII and UEC were never disputed.
HELD:
(i) NO.
 Venue concerns a rule of procedure. In (iii) NO.
personal actions, it is fixed for the greatest  The suit being a personal action, venue was
convenience possible of the plaintiff and his improperly laid in RTC-Batac.
witnesses.  The fact that Irene procured a CTC indicating
 Where the defendant failed to either file a her address as being in Batac is of no moment,
motion to dismiss on the ground of it being a simple matter to easily secure at any
improper venue, or to include such ground time, and to have it dictate whatever relevant
as an affirmative defense, he is deemed to data one desires.
have waived his right to object to improper  Nor is the argument that Batac is where one of
venue. the principal plaintiffs, included in the amended
 Respondents here raised the ground at the complaint, resides.
earliest time possible in their respective  It is necessary to determine the status of
motions to dismiss. Irene’s co-plaintiffs first before passing
 They reiterated the same in their answers to upon the issue of improper venue.
the amended complaints, and then again in  Pursuant to Section 2 of Rule 3, it is clear that
their petition for certiorari before the CA. the real party-in-interest plaintiff is Irene. She,
 Respondents never waived their right to as the alleged beneficiary of the trust, stands to
object to improper venue. be benefited or injured by the resolution of the
suit.
(ii) NO.  On the other hand, her co-plaintiffs were
 Real actions are those that affect title to or included in the amended complaint as her new
possession of real property, or interest therein. designated trustees. Under Section 3 of Rule
In a personal action, the plaintiff seeks 3, as trustees, the can only serve as mere
recovery of personal property, the enforcement representatives of Irene.
of a contract, or the recovery of damages.  Section 2 of Rule 4 clearly states that where
 The venue of real actions shall be the court there is more than one plaintiff in a
having jurisdiction over the area wherein the personal action, the residences of the
real property, or a part thereof, is situated. The principal parties shall be the basis for
venue of personal actions lies with the court determining proper venue.
where either the plaintiff, or any of the principal  According to the late Justice Feria, the word
plaintiffs, or the defendant, or any of the “principal” had been added in order to prevent
principal defendants resides. the plaintiff from choosing the residence of a
 The case is not a real action involving real minor plaintiff or defendant as the venue.
properties located outside of the territorial  Irene is undisputedly the principal plaintiff, as
jurisdiction of RTC-Batac. she is the only real party-in-interest plaintiff.
 Petitioners seek to make the Benedicto Group This is bolstered by the fact that she was the
acknowledge holding in trust Irene’s purported one who initiated and actively prosecuted the
65% stock ownership of FEMII and UEC, and actions.
to execute in her favor the necessary deed of  Hence the civil cases should have been filed
conveyance thereof. where she or any of the Benedicto Group
 The fact that FEMIIs assets include real resides.
properties does not materially change the
nature of the action, for the ownership PETITION IS GRANTED.
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.