The rules on venue do not apply to actions involving a mortgage contract such as a petition for

extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage. In Ochoa vs. Chinabank, G.R. No. 192877, March 23, 2011, the
Supreme Court held that the exclusive venue of Makati City, as stipulated by the parties and sanctioned
by Section 4, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court, cannot be made to apply to the Petition for Extrajudicial
Foreclosure filed by respondent bank because the provisions of Rule 4 pertain to venue of actions, which
an extrajudicial foreclosure is not. There is no reason to depart from the doctrinal pronouncement of
the Supreme Court.

The case at bar involves petitioners’ mortgaged real property located in Parañaque City over which
respondent bank was granted a special power to foreclose extra-judicially. Thus, by express provision of
Section 2, the sale can only be made in Parañaque City.

On appealPetitioners insist that it was error for the CA to rule that the stipulated exclusive venue of
Makati City is binding only on

AAA filed a complaint for Annulment of Foreclosure, Sale, and Damages filed before the Regional Trial
Court of Parañaque City, but not on respondent bank’s

XYZ Bank filed for a petition for Extrajudicial Foreclosure of Mortgage before RTC of Malolos over which
the subject property is located. AAA opposed said action insisting in his affirmative defense that parties
agreed in their contact to file all actions relative thereon exclusively in RTC of Makati City. Is AAA
meritorious?

"The rules on venue do not apply to actions involving a mortgage contract such as a petition for
extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage."

The exclusive venue of Makati City, as stipulated by the parties and sanctioned by Section 4, Rule 4 of
the Rules of Court, cannot be made to apply to the Petition for Extrajudicial Foreclosure filed by
respondent bank because the provisions of Rule 4 pertain to venue of actions, which an extrajudicial
foreclosure is not. Consequently, the stipulated exclusive venue of Makati City is relevant only to actions
arising from or related to the mortgage, such as petitioners’ complaint for Annulment of Foreclosure,
Sale, and Damages.

The rule on joinder of actions under Section 5, Rule 2 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended,
requires that the joinder shall not include special civil actions governed by special rules. (Roman Catholic
Archbishop of San Fernando Pampanga vs. Fernando Soriano Jr., et al., G.R. No. 153829, August 17,
2011, Villarama, Jr., J.).