RULE 4

Venue of Actions

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. (1[a], 2[a]a)

Section 2. Venue of personal actions. — All other actions may be commenced and tried where the
plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides, or where the defendant or any of the principal
defendants resides, or in the case of a non-resident defendant where he may be found, at the election
of the plaintiff. (2[b]a)

Section 3. Venue of actions against nonresidents. — If any of the defendants does not reside and is not
found in the Philippines, and the action affects the personal status of the plaintiff, or any property of
said defendant located in the Philippines, the action may be commenced and tried in the court of the
place where the plaintiff resides, or where the property or any portion thereof is situated or found.
(2[c]a)

Section 4. When Rule not applicable. — This Rule shall not apply.

(a) In those cases where a specific rule or law provides otherwise; or

(b) Where the parties have validly agreed in writing before the filing of the action on the exclusive venue
thereof. (3a, 5a)

Venue refers to the geographic location for the trial of a suit where jurisdiction could be established.
Venue deals with the place where judicial power should be exercised while jurisdiction deals with the
authority of a court to exercise judicial power.

In civil cases, venue is not jurisdictional. However, in criminal cases venue is jurisdictional.

CASE DOCTRINES

Venue essentially concerns a rule of procedure which, in personal actions, is fixed for the greatest
convenience possible of the plaintiff and his witnesses. The ground of improperly laid venue must be
raised seasonably, else it is deemed waived. Where the defendant failed to either file a motion to
dismiss on the ground of improper venue or include the same as an affirmative defense, he is deemed to
have waived his right to object to improper venue. (Marcos-Araneta v. Court of Appeals G.R. NO.
154096, August 22, 2008)

The petitioners’ complaint for collection of sum of money against the respondents is a personal action as
it primarily seeks the enforcement of a contract. The Rules give the plaintiff the option of choosing
where to file his complaint. He can file it in the place (1) where he himself or any of them resides, or (2)
where the defendant or any of the defendants resides or may be found. The plaintiff or the defendant
must be residents of the place where the action has been instituted at the time the action is
commenced.
However, if the plaintiff does not reside in the Philippines, the complaint in such case may only be filed
in the court of the place where the defendant resides. (Ang, represented by Aceron v. Spouses Ang, G.R.
No. 186993, 22 August 2012).

Improper venue not impleaded in the motion to dismiss or in the answer is deemed waived. Thus, a
court may not dismiss an action motu proprio on the ground of improper venue as it is not one of the
grounds wherein the court may dismiss an action motu proprio on the basis of the pleadings. In the
instant case, respondent, despite proper service of summons, failed to file an answer and was thus
declared in default by the trial court. Verily, having been declared in default, he lost his standing in court
and his right to adduce evidence and present his defense, including his right to question the propriety of
the venue of the action. (Universal Robina Corporation v. Lim, G.R. No. 154338, 05 October 2007)

In a real action, the plaintiff seeks the recovery of real property, or as provided for in Section 1, Rule 4, a
real action is an action affecting title to or possession of real property, or interest therein. These include
partition or condemnation of, or foreclosure 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 property or any part thereof lies. Personal action is one brought for the
recovery of personal property, for the enforcement of some contract or recovery of damages for its
breach, or for the recovery of damages for the commission of an injury to the person or property. The
venue for personal actions is likewise the same for the regional and municipal trial courts -- the court of
the place where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides, or where the defendant or any of
the principal defendants resides, at the election of the plaintiff, as indicated in Section 2 of Rule 4. The
cancellation of the real estate mortgage, subject of the instant petition, is a real action, considering that
a real estate mortgage is a real right and a real property by itself. An action for cancellation of real estate
mortgage is necessarily an action affecting the title to the property. It is, therefore, a real action which
should be commenced and tried in Mandaluyong City, the place where the subject property lies. ( Go v.
UCPB, et al., G.R. No. 156187. November 11, 2004)

depending on the peculiar circumstances of the case, the Court may declare the agreement as to venue
to be in effect contrary to public policy, — despite that in general, changes and transfers of venue by
written agreement of the parties is allowable — whenever it is shown that a stipulation as to venue
works injustice by practically denying to the party concerned a fair opportunity to file suit in the place
designated by the rules. (Hoechst Philippines, Inc. v. Torres, 83 SCRA 297)

 the cause of action to recover on the basis of the Surety Agreement is inseparable from that which is
based on the Promissory Note. The cause of action does not affect the venue of the action. The vital
issue in the present case is whether the action against the sureties is covered by the restriction on venue
stipulated in the Promissory Note. As earlier stated, the answer is in the affirmative. Since the cases
pertaining to both causes of action are restricted to Makati City as the proper venue, petitioner cannot
rely on Section 5 of Rule 2 of the Rules of Court. (Phil. Bank of Commerce v. Lim, G.R. No. 158135, April
12, 2005)

On the other hand, for purposes of venue, the less technical definition of "residence" is adopted. Thus, it
is understood to mean as "the personal, actual or physical habitation of a person, actual residence or
place of abode. It signifies physical presence in a place and actual stay thereat. In this popular sense, the
term means merely residence, that is, personal residence, not legal residence or domicile. Residence
simply requires bodily presence as an inhabitant in a given place, while domicile requires bodily
presence in that place and an intention to make it one's domicile." The fact then that petitioner Saludo's
community tax certificate was issued at Pasay City is of no moment because granting arguendo that he
could be considered a resident therein, the same does not preclude his having a residence in Southern
Leyte for purposes of venue. A man can have but one domicile for one and the same purpose at any
time, but he may have numerous places of residence. (Saludo v. American Express, G.R. No. 159507,
April 19, 2006)

there is a distinction between "residence" for purposes of election laws and "residence" for purposes of
fixing the venue of actions. In election cases, "residence" and "domicile" are treated as synonymous
terms, that is, the fixed permanent residence to which when absent, one has the intention of returning.
However, for purposes of fixing venue under the Rules of Court, the "residence" of a person is his
personal, actual or physical habitation, or actual residence or place of abode, which may not necessarily
be his legal residence or domicile provided he resides therein with continuity and consistency.   Hence, it
is possible that a person may have his residence in one place and domicile in another. (San Luis v. San
Luis, G.R. No. 133743, FEB. 6, 2007)

The essence of forum-shopping is the filing of multiple suits involving the same parties for the same
cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, for the purpose of obtaining a favorable
judgment. he elements of forum-shopping are: (a) identity of parties, or at least such parties as
represent the same interests in both actions; (b) identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the
reliefs being founded on the same facts; and (c) the identity with respect to the two preceding
particulars in the two cases is such that any judgment rendered in the pending cases, regardless of
which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the other case. The Malolos case is an action to
annul the foreclosure sale that is necessarily an action affecting the title of the property sold. It is
therefore a real action which should be commenced and tried in the province where the property or
part thereof lies. The Manila case, on the other hand, is a personal action involving as it does the
enforcement of a contract between Rosemoore, whose office is in Quezon City, and the Bank, whose
principal office is in Binondo, Manila. Personal actions may be commenced and tried where the plaintiff
or any of the principal plaintiffs resides, or where the defendants or any of the principal defendants
resides, at the election of the plaintiff. (United Overseas Bank v. Rosemoore Mining & Dev’t., G.R. No.
159669, March 12, 2007)

The general rule is that the venue of real actions is the court which has jurisdiction over the area
wherein the real property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated; while the venue of personal actions
is the court which has jurisdiction where the plaintiff or the defendant resides, at the election of the
plaintiff. The parties, however, are not precluded from agreeing in writing on an exclusive venue, as
qualified by Section 4 of the same rule. Written stipulations as to venue may be restrictive in the sense
that the suit may be filed only in the place agreed upon, or merely permissive in that the parties may file
their suit not only in the place agreed upon but also in the places fixed by law. Conversely, therefore, a
complaint directly assailing the validity of the written instrument itself should not be bound by the
exclusive venue stipulation contained therein and should be filed in accordance with the general rules
on venue. To be sure, 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. (Briones vs. CA, G.R. No. 204444, January 14, 2015)
Parties may by stipulation waive the legal venue and such waiver is valid and effective being merely a
personal privilege, which is not contrary to public policy or prejudicial to third persons. It is a general
principle that a person may renounce any right which the law gives unless such renunciation would be
against public policy. the choice of venue is a matter addressed to the sound judgment of the parties
based on considerations personal to them, i.e. convenience. It is only the parties who may raise
objection on the same. Absent such protest, it is an error for the R TC to decide that the venue was
improperly laid as it is tantamount to needlessly interfering to a mutually agreed term. ( Radiowealth
Finance vs. Nolasco, GR 227146, November 14, 2016)

Petitioner and respondent have entered into a contract of sale with respect to petitioner's merchandise.
However, the case records do not show that they have a contract in relation to the venue of any civil
action arising from their business transaction. Since there is no contractual stipulation that can be
enforced on the venue of dispute resolution, the venue of petitioner's personal action will be governed
by the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. It has been consistently held that an action for collection of
sum of money is a personal action. Taking into account that no exception can be applied in this case, the
venue, then, is "where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides, or where the defendant or
any of the principal defendants resides, . . . at the election of the plaintiff." For a corporation, its
residence is considered "the place where its principal office is located as stated in its Articles of
Incorporation." (Hygienic Packaging Corp vs Nutria-Asia, G.R. No. 201302, Jan. 23, 2019)

the venue for personal actions shall - as a general rule - lie with the court which has jurisdiction where
the plaintiff or the defendant resides, at the election of the plaintiff. As an exception, parties may,
through a written instrument, restrict the filing of said actions in a certain exclusive venue. n Pilipino
Telephone Corporation v. Tecson, the Court held that an exclusive venue stipulation is valid and binding,
provided that: (a) the stipulation on the chosen venue is exclusive in nature or in intent; (b) it is
expressed in writing by the parties thereto; and (c) it is entered into before the filing of the suit. In this
case, it is undisputed that petitioner's action was one for collection of sum of money in an amount that
falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC. Since the lease contract already provided that all actions
or cases involving the breach thereof should be filed with the RTC of Pasay City, and that petitioner’s
complaint purporting the said breach fell within the RTC's exclusive original jurisdiction, the latter should
have then followed the contractual stipulation and filed its complaint before the RTC of Pasay City.
However, it is undeniable that petitioner filed its complaint with the Valenzuela-RTC; hence, the same is
clearly dismissible on the ground of improper venue, without prejudice, however, to its refiling in the
proper court. (Ley Construction vs. Sedano, G.R. No. 222711, August 23, 2017)

An acquittal from a charge of physical violence against women and their children is not a bar to the filing
of a civil action for damages for physical injuries under Article 33 of the Civil Code if an acquittal was due
to reasonable doubt, without any declaration that the facts upon which the offense arises are
nonexistent. The action for damages filed by respondent does not involve the title or possession of a
real property, or interest therein. It is a personal action, and respondent, as plaintiff, had the option of
either filing it in her place of residence or the defendant, petitioner's, place of residence. She chose to
file the civil case in her place of residence, that is, Mandaluyong City. Under the Rules of Court, personal
actions, such as an action for damages, must be filed in the plaintiff or defendant's residence, at the
election of the plaintiff, unless the parties agree on another venue. Considering that Patricia was already
residing in Mandaluyong City at the time of the filing of the case, she correctly filed the Complaint for
Damages before the Regional Trial Court of Mandaluyong. the civil liability under Article 33 of the Civil
Code is separate and distinct from the civil liability arising under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code.
Thus, an offended party may pursue both kinds of civil liability, even simultaneously, without offending
the rule against forum shopping. (Kane vs. Roggenkamp, GR. 214326, July 6, 2020)