You are on page 1of 4

Lecture CivPro_AMEV 1 Rule 4

RULE 4 VENUE OF ACTIONS what is VENUE? place where an action muct be instituted and tried venue in REAL Actions- commenced and tried in the proper court which has jurisdiction over the area wherein the real property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated when is an action a real action? Actions affecting title to or possession of real property, or interest therein. what is A personal action? One that has privity to personal prop, enforcement of a contract and recovery of damages Section 1. Venue of real actions. Actions affecting title to or possession of real property, or interest therein, shall be commenced and tried in the proper court which has jurisdiction over the area wherein the real property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated. Forcible entry and detainer actions shall be commenced and tried in the municipal trial court of the municipality or city wherein the real property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated. Fortune Motors v CA Fortune motors had a loan w/ MBTC secured by REM. was not able to pay and was foreclosed sold at public auction w/ 1 yr redemption pd. 3 days before the expiry of redemption pd Fortune filed an action for the annulment of sale in RTC Manila. MBTC – motion to dismiss-venue improperly laid in Manila being a real action it shld have been filed in Makati where the property is located. Is an action for annulment of REM a personal or real action? it does not involve any title or possession the right of ME is only inchoate and will only arise if there is a foreclosure share. Held: it was a real action bec it is a recovery of title thus RTC Makati has jurisdiction. ACTION TO ANNUL SALE OF REAL PROPERTY; RECOVERY THEREOF THE PRIMARY OBJECTIVE. — While it is true that petitioner does not directly seek the recovery of title or possession of the property in question, his action for annulment of sale and his claim for damages are closely intertwined with the issue of ownership of the building which, under the law, is considered immovable property, the recovery of which is petitioner's primary objective. The prevalent doctrine is that an action for the annulment or rescission of a sale of real property does not operate to efface the fundamental and prime objective and nature of the case, which is to recover said real property. It is a real action. Respondent Court, therefore, did not err in dismissing the case on the ground of improper venue (Sec. 2, Rule 4) which was timely raised Torres vs Tuazon12 S 74- p. 616 – paras action for specific performance and asked deed of sale to be issued to him and TCT be issued to him. Plaintiff filed an action in Manila praying that JM Tuazon and Co be able to execute a deed of Sale. Agreement that ARanetas will pay Dudors. Action of plaintiff is to require Tuazons and ARaneta to execute a deed of Sale which he bought fr X w/c he bought fr the action to compel execution of deed of sale shld be filed in QC. Motion to dismiss. Plaintiff said that they are simply asking to comply with the agreement. SC. the fact that plaintiff that deed of sale be executed showed the it aims to recover real prop thus it revolves in issue of ownership DR. ANTONIO A. LIZARES, INC., vs. HON. HERMOGENES CALUAG, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Quezon City, and FLAVIANO CACNIO Cacnio bought land in installment fr Lizares, and w/o reason Lizares refused to accept his pyt and threatens Cacnio to repossess the land. Cacnio filed a cs in CFI Rizal Quezon praying that defendant be ordered to accept pyt- saying that it was a personal action. Property is in Bacolod. Held: real action- his action is intertwined to the title in the property and possession thereof. it is only the st immediate and 1 step to his title to the property JOSE M. HERNANDEZ, petitioner, vs. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES and COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF BATANGAS, LIPA CITY BRANCH action to annul the cancellation of award. Hernandez was awarded a house n lot, to be paid in mo installment. He issued a check in pyt thereof only to be informed that the award was already cancelled bec he is no longer entitled bec he already retired. Filed an action to annul the cancellation of award given to him, he filed it in CFI Batangas where he resides. Motion to dismiss due to improper venue was filed by DBP saying that it is a real action thus shld be in QC were prop is located. Held: Personal Action. Not an issue of ownership or title to real prop but merely seeks defendant to recognize the award previously given Can’t we say in this cs and that of Lizares, that the action st is only a 1 step? In Lizares, it was a Contract to SELL, it is a contract to sell in the future. Is there an instance that a promise to sell can no longer be withdrawn? If a promise is not

Motion to dismiss – improper venue file by Raymond bec their Residence is in UPSUMCO cmpd in Bais City being an OIC in the business firm. We are fully convinced that private respondent Coloma's protestations of domicile in San Nicolas. All other actions may be commenced and tried where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides. CA. is entirely of no moment since what is of paramount importance is where he actually resided or where he may be found at the time he brought the action. In Koh v." Even where the statute uses the word "domicile. We ruled: "Applying the foregoing observation to the present case. the issue arose also in Bacolod. 530). you still apply Rules on Real Action but for purposes of jurisdiction can be a real thing for purposes of Jurisdiction. 20 Phil. 305. do not confuse Real action and an action w/c is incapable of pecuniary estimation. Shld be filed in Bais the very subj of controversy happened in Bais City. actual or physical habitation of a person. although contract to sell palang pero pag nacomplete mo na ang bayad.RTC for damages.affidavit appended of Bitera also states this fact.Lecture CivPro_AMEV 2 Rule 4 supported by a separate and distinct consideration. the terms are synonymous and convey the same meaning as the term "inhabitant ". or where the defendant or any of the principal defendants resides. they are both residents here and cause of damages arose fr a controversy in UPSUMPCO. to comply substantially with the requirements of Sec. Her parents live there but at the time of the incident she is residing in Bacolod City bec of work as well as the petitioners. WORDS "RESIDE OR "RESIDENCE" AS USED THEREIN. Property is in Ozamiz City. 1975.F. meaning. where he actual stays. Bitera’s residence cert issued in Negros Occidental." but as generally used in statutes fixing venue. actual and place of abode. It is just a 1 step to your ownership. Issue here is not a real prop but fixing the pd of lease. bec Bitera’s address based on the complaint is in Iloilo. Tan was requested by the hospital to explain her side but instead filed a case in Cebu. Hernandez v DBP. the controversy arose in Bacolod City. Paderanga v Buissan went to Dipolog to filed an action to fix pd of lease. then "the administration of justice becomes incomplete and unsatisfactory and lays itself open to criticism. In other words. based on his manifested intention to return there after the retirement of his wife from government service to justify his bringing of an action for damages against petitioner in the C. 2(b) of Rule 4. or in the case of a non-resident defendant where he may be found.I. For purposes of Venue. . Venue of personal actions. physical residence. physical and personal residence. case shld have been filed in Bacolod. 2. physical presence where you return fr work VENUE PROVISION. Some cases make a distinction between the terms "residence and "domicile. v. 523. Real Action: you are not asking to fix ½ but the whole property. actual residence or place of abode. If the objective is not achieved. or any property of the defendant located in th - . sayo na. it can be withdrawn at any time provided that the promisee has not yet accepted if it was accepted. December 17. at the election of the plaintiff. it is a perfect contract." still it construed as meaning residence and not "domicile" in the technical sense. Held: Tan is a legal resident of Cebu. 74 SCRA 189." (Manila Railroad Co. Held: Residence – actual residence. the purpose of procedure is not to restrict the court's jurisdiction over the subject matter but to give it effective facility "in righteous action. Attorney General. It is not the prayer but the allegations of the complaint. Rules of Court. 199 (citing cases) that the doctrinal rule is that the term "resides" connotes Ex Vi Termini "actual residence' as distinguished from st 'legal residence or domicile. Sec." "to facilitate and promote the administration of justice" or to insure "just judgments" by means of a fair hearing." As perspicaciously observed by Justice Moreland. of Ilocos Norte. provided that it involves the personal status of the plaintiff. . The term residence is actual. Ilocos Norte. Can a non-resident be sued? Yes. CONSTRUED. "resides" should be viewed or understood in its popular sense. Court of Appeals. Esuerte v CA Tan a Jr resident of a Hospital was complained by Esuerte a head nurse for shouting and humiliating her w/o justifiable reason. Installment is a consideration supporting the promise. What is meant by the word reside? Raymond v CA Bitera filed complaint for damages against Raymond in RTC Iloilo. on venue of personal actions . If court will fix the pd it will involve the effect of repossession of the whole property.it is a mere award. the personal. Motion to dismiss for improper venue and exhaustion of admin remedies. — it was held in Garcia Fule v. L-40428. 70 SCRA 298.

1 But the contract between them provides that " . . . 4. back of the ticket.. Kubota Agri-Machinery Philippines. plaintiff-appellee. Libel. Quezon City — or other contractual provisions clearly evincing the same desire and intention — the stipulation should be construed. petitioner. not unless it is contrary to public policy. respondents. Absent additional words and expressions definitely and unmistakably denoting the parties' desire and intention that actions between them should be ventilated only at the place selected by them. defendant is a resident of Bulacan. Inc. or any property of said defendant located in the Philippines. plaintiff-appellant. simply KUBOTA) and Unimasters Conglomeration.. at the option of the plaintiff (UNIMASTERS in this case do not merely use the word shall but must have additional words…exclusively. defendant-appellant. Held: merely permissive. This Rule shall not apply: (a) In those cases where a specific rule or law provides otherwise. vs. and the action affects the personal status of the plaintiff. Motion to dismiss improper venue bec they have a stipulation that all actions MAY be instituted in CFI Naga City. If any of the defendants does not reside and is not found in the Philippines. When Rule not applicable. not as confining suits between the parties only to that one place. can not be sued except when it affects status of plaintiff or defendant located in the Phils.place where the property of defendant. INC. but as allowing suits either in Quezon City or Tacloban City. 3.where the plaintiff resides prop of defendant. asa Boracay na.. is that valid? gen. FRANCISCO TORRES they were forced to hide in the cargo section and they were exposed to heat and dust. POLYTRADE CORPORATION. solely. or where the property or any portion thereof is situated or found. where he resides. (b) Where the parties have validly agreed in writing before the filing of the action on the exclusive venue thereof.where the property is located. Stipulations on venue in a contract of adhesion." without mention of Tacloban City where the cs was filed for breach of contract. The question is whether this stipulation had the effect of effectively eliminating the latter as an optional venue and limiting litigation between UNIMASTERS and KUBOTA only and exclusively to Quezon City. and a case was filed against him here CFI Bulacan by Polytrade Corp for recovery of purchase price for the purchase of Rawhide.use of the word “May” UNIMASTERS CONGLOMERATION.Lecture CivPro_AMEV 3 Rule 4 Sec. etc. and the general postulates distilled therefrom. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for improper venue bec they stipulated that the parties may be sued or sue in Manila. INC.Case was filed in CFI Misamis Oriental. or eg. DR. HOECHST PHILIPPINES. public officerst where he is holding office or where 1 printed. petitioner. (hereafter. (hereafter. COURT OF APPEALS and KUBOTA AGRI-MACHINERY PHILIPPINES. You can sue bec you can serve summons.where printed. merely consented to be sued in Manila but does not preclude the filing of cs in Bulacandefendant’s residence VIRGILIO CAPATI. Quezon City. the action may be commenced and tried in the court of the place where the plaintiff resides. collection for a sum of money and able to attach property of defendant. a non-resident not found in the Phils can not be sued in our courts bec cant acquire jurisdiction over the person but if it an action in rem. vs. JESUS P. simply UNIMASTERS) entered into a "Dealership Agreement for Sales and Services" of the former's products in Samar and Leyte Provinces. (redendo singula singunis) a non-resident if not found in the Phils.and the tickets they bought were not honored. Aklan. read sec 3 in rel to sec 2. etc to be finished in on or before June 5 but was only finished June 20.non-residentdi nagbayad ng bills sa Clark.can file the cs only in Cebu. . Capati filed a cs for damages for the delay in CFI Pampanga. pag status and property of defendant – in becomes in rem. All suits arising out of this Agreement shall be filed with/in the proper Courts of Quezon City. OCAMPO CAPATI is a resident of Pampange entered into a contract w/ Ocampo for construction of vault walls. Inc. Venue of actions against non-residents. Sec. Held: stipulation is merely permissive. INC. the question should receive a negative answer. VICTORIANO BLANCO. In light of all the cases above surveyed. vs. personal status of the plaintiffStatus of Plaintiff. vs. either in Pamp and Kalibo.

Lecture CivPro_AMEV 4 Rule 4 Held: Contract of Adhesion. Too inconvenient to file the cs only in Cebu. petitioner. vs. — Unless and until the defendant objects to the venue in a motion to dismiss. NOT IMPROPERLY LAID UNLESS AND UNTIL DEFENDANT OBJECTS TO IT IN A MOTION TO DISMISS.mostly but tickets during ruch hrs and no time to read the provisions. ANTONIO V.while provisions on venue is mainly for convenience of the parties. The trial court cannot pre-empt the defendant's prerogative to object to the improper laying of the venue by motu proprio dismissing the case. or possession of. if no one objects then it is convenient for them Time Magazine – p. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT. the venue. back of the ticket. Held: Judge committed error.can file the cs only in Cebu. The Supreme Court sustained the trial court and declared the condition void and unenforceable as contrary to public policy which is to make the courts accessible to all who may have need of their services SWEET LINE. it being a regional trial court vested with the exclusive original jurisdiction over "all civil actions which involve the title to. petitioner. vs.. Petitioner moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground of improper venue. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss as well as the motion for reconsideration. the venue cannot be truly said to have been improperly laid.venue residence of the defendant . RTC – Antipolo Rizal.Case was filed in CFI Misamis Oriental. The motion was premised on the condition printed att he back of the tickets that actions arising from "the provisions of this ticket shall be filed in the competent courts in the City of Cebu. Two passengers of an inter-island vessel sued petitioner company in the Court o First Instance of Misamis Oriental for breach of contract of carriage. or any interest therein . 119. – on the ground that it is a real action thus venue shld be where property is located.Regalado. even granting for a moment that the action of petitioner is a real action. . no choice but to they were forced to hide in the cargo section and they were exposed to heat and dust. JESUS DACOYCOY. Petitioner moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground of improper venue. though technically wrong. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss as well as the motion for reconsideration. real property. – contrary to public policy. respondent trial court would still have jurisdiction over the case. HON. BERNARDO TEVES kawawa naman ang tao. The Supreme Court sustained the trial court and declared the condition void and unenforceable as contrary to public policy which is to make the courts accessible to all who may have need of their services. Two passengers of an inter-island vessel sued petitioner company in the Court o First Instance of Misamis Oriental for breach of contract of carriage. The motion was premised on the condition printed att he back of the tickets that actions arising from "the provisions of this ticket shall be filed in the competent courts in the City of Cebu.he has to distinguish jurisdiction vs venue. HON. REASON. respondent judge in this cs motu proprio (at its own urging) dismissed the case for improper venue bec the cs was a real action pertainining to annulment of 2 deeds of sale involving real property in Pangasinan. Too inconvenient to file the cs only in Cebu.and the tickets they bought were not honored. they have monopoly. HON. Held: Contract of Adhesion. venue is for the convenience of the parties.while provisions on venue is mainly for convenience of the parties. as for all practical intents and purposes. – contrary to public policy.mostly but tickets during ruch hrs and no time to read the provisions. may be acceptable to the parties for whose convenience the rules on venue had been devised.npon-resident. BENEDICTO. INC.