RULE 4 – VENUE OF ACTIONS DISCUSSION OUTLINE

Venue defined and distinguished-

Venue is the place where the action is to be commenced and tried. It has also
been defined as the proper location for the trial of a case.

Distinguishing it from jurisdiction: (a) venue is the place where action is

commenced and tried, jurisdiction is the authority of a court to hear and
decide the action (b) venue may be waived, jurisdiction over the subject matter
cannot be waived, but that over the person can be waived (c) venue may be the
subject of a written agreement, jurisdiction cannot be subject of a written
agreement (d) a court cannot motu-propio dismiss on improper venue, while if
it has no jurisdiction, a court can motu-propio dismiss the action.

Rules on venue-

Section 1 provides that if it is a real action or one that affects title to or

possession of real property, or an interest therein, it 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 are to be commenced and tried in the Municipal Trial Court, which has
jurisdiction over the area wherein the real property involved, or any portion
thereof, is situated.

Section 2 provides that if it is a personal action or one that is brought for the
recovery of personal property, for the enforcement of a contract or recovery of
damages for its breach of for the recovery of damages due to injury to person or
property or such all other actions shall be commenced or tried where the
plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs reside or any of the defendants reside,
or if a non-resident defendant, where he may be found at the election of the
plaintiff.

Reside means the place of abode, whether permanent or temporary, as

distinguished from domicile or the fixed permanent residence, where if one is
absent he intends to return.

Section 3 provides that if the defendant is a non-resident or one who 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.

When the rules on venue are not applicable-

Section 4 provides that they do not apply:

1. In cases where a specific rule or law provides otherwise.

2. Where the parties have validly agreed in writing before the filing of the
action as to exclusive venue.

Any agreement as to venue must be in writing and for exclusivity, the intent must
be clear, otherwise, it will be interpreted to allow for an additional venue.

In the case of Sweet Lines v Teves (83 SCRA 361), the court said the freedom of the
parties to stipulate on the venue is however subject to the usual rules on contract
interpretation. Where the provision appears to be one-sided as to amount to a
contract of adhesion, the consent of the parties thereto may well be vitiated and
the venue stipulation will not be given effect.

The rule on venue is party oriented. It looks to the convenience of the parties.
Thus the rule on venue as to real actions presumes that the place where the
subject real property is located is convenient to the parties. Hence, the rule as to
venue can yield to an agreement as to exclusive venue. Section 4, Rule 4 applies
to both real and personal actions as long as the requisites are met.

In the case of Briones v. CA and Cash Asia Credit Corporation (G.R. No. 204444,
January 14, 2015), the court said that in cases where the complaint assails only
the terms, conditions, and/or coverage of a written instrument and not its
validity, the exclusive venue stipulation contained therein shall still be binding
on the parties, and thus, the complaint may be properly dismissed on the ground
of improper venue. 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.

In the case of Philippine Bank of Communications v Lim (455 SCRA 714), venue as
stipulated in the promissory note shall govern notwithstanding the absence of a
stipulation as to venue in an accompanying surety agreement as the latter can
only be enforced in conjunction with the former.

How venue is questioned-

Venue may be questioned in an answer by way of an affirmative defense. If it is

not questioned, it is deemed waived.