Molina v Dela Riva

Plaintiff Rafael Molina transferred to defendant Antonio

Antonio dela Riva the abaca and coprax business
theretofore carried on by him at various places in the Island of Catanduanes, with all the property
and right pertaining to the said business, or the sum of !",#!# pesos and $ cents, payable in
Mexican currency or its e%uivalent in local currency& Defendant paid at the time of the execution
of the contract, on account of the purchase price, the sum of P!!,#'( pesos and ! cents,
promising to pay the balance on three installments P!!,#'( pesos and ! cents each, with interest

at the$+,
*uly rate of ' per
("& cent
It was forper
theannum from
recovery ofthe
thisdate
firstof the contract&
installment that)he first
their installment
action became
was brought in due
the
Court of -irst Instance of the City of Manila&

Defendant demurred to the complaint on the ground that the court had no .urisdiction of the
sub.ect of the action&

Defendant’s contention: Partieshad mutually designated in the Par& ( of the contract in %uestion

the town of /ato, Islands of Catanduanes, as the place where all .udicial and extra.udicial acts
necessary under the terms thereof should ta0e place&

Issue1
2hether or not the Court did not ac%uire .urisdiction pursuant to Par& ( of the contract&

3eld1
45&

Designation
Designatio n of the town of /ato made by the parties
parties had no legal force and coul could
d not have the
effect of depriving the Court of -irst Instance of Manila of the .urisdiction conferred on it by law&
)his would be true even though it may be granted that the parties actually intended to waive the
rights
rights of domicile
domicile and expre
expressly
ssly submit themselves
themselves to the exclusive
exclusive .uri
.urisdict
sdiction
ion of the Court of 
-irst Instance of Albay, contended the appellant, all of which it may be said seems to be very
doubtful, .udging from the vague and uncertain manner in which the designation was made& )he
 .urisdiction of a court is filed by law and not by the will of the parties
pa rties&& As a matter of public policy,
parties can only stipulate in regard to that which is expressly authori6ed by law& 7ection !++ of 
Procedure provides
the Code of Civil Procedure  provides a plain and definite rule for the purpose of determining the
 .urisdiction of courts according to the nature of the action& 4either that section nor any other 
provision of law, of which we have any 0nowledge, authori6es the parties to submit themselves by
an express stipulation to the .urisdiction of a particular court to the exclusion of the court duly
vested with such .urisdiction& 2e conse%uently hold that the agreement between the parties to
submit themselves to the .urisdiction of the Court of -irst Instance of Albay, ifif there was a any
ny such
agreement, was null and void, in so far as it had for its ob.ect to deprive the Court of -irst
Instance of Manila of its own .urisdiction&

 Articles $'' and $+8 of the Civil Code relied upon by the appellant in his brief are not
applicable to cases relating to the .urisdiction of courts& )he 9aw of Procedure and not the Civil
Code Case and defines the .urisdiction of courts& It is not true as contended by the appellant that
the right which litigants had under the 7panish law to submit themselves to the .urisdiction of a
particular court was governed by the provisions of the Civil Code& 7uch right was recogni6ed and
governed by the provisions of the 9aw of Procedure and not by the substantive law& )he right to
contract, recogni6ed in the Civil Code and referred to by appellant, has nothing to do with the
right to establish and fix the .urisdiction of a court& )his right can only be exercised by the
legislative branch of the :overnment, the only one vested with the necessary power to ma0e
rules governing the sub.ect& In this connection it may be said that the .urisdiction of a court can
not be the sub.ect;matter of a contract&