Paglaum Management and Dev't Corp. and Health Marketing Technologies, Inc., vs Union Bank of the Philippines G.R.

No.
179018, April 17, 2013
Facts:
Facts:
Union Bank filed this motion for reconsideration saying that restructuring agreement is null and void because the borrower has not
complied with the condition precedent of the bank. It is also unenforceable because it was only between Health and Union bank.
Paglaum was a party only to the real estate mortgages and not in the restructuring agreement. The venue is exclusively in Cebu City,
and the assumption of the RTC's jurisdiction was without basis.
Issue:
WON cause of action was properly raised in this case
Held:
Issues raised for the first time in a motion for reconsideration before this Court are deemed waived, because these should have been
brought up at the first opportunity. Nevertheless, there is no cogent reason to warrant a reconsideration or modification of our 18 June
2012 Decision.

Union Bank raises three new issues that require a factual determination that is not within the province of this Court. These questions
can be brought to and resolved by the RTC as it is the proper avenue in which to raise factual issues and to present evidence in support
of these claims.

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.
Sec. 3. 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.
(Emphasis supplied.)
In Sps. Lantin v. Lantion,1[34] this Court explained that a venue stipulation must contain words that show exclusivity or
restrictiveness, as follows:
At the outset, we must make clear that under Section 4 (b) of Rule 4 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the general rules on venue
of actions shall not apply where the parties, before the filing of the action, have validly agreed in writing on an exclusive venue. The
mere stipulation on the venue of an action, however, is not enough to preclude parties from bringing a case in other venues. The
parties must be able to show that such stipulation is exclusive. In the absence of qualifying or restrictive words, the stipulation
should be deemed as merely an agreement on an additional forum, not as limiting venue to the specified place.
 
xxx xxx xxx
 
Clearly, the words “exclusively” and “waiving for this purpose any other venue” are restrictive and used advisedly to meet the
requirements.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, we DENY the Motion for Reconsideration with FINALITY.