You are on page 1of 8

LANTIN

vs
LANTION

RULE 4, SECTION 4
FACTS

 There were loan agreements between Sps Renato &


Angelina Lantin and Planters Development Bank.
They executed several real estate mortgages and
checks to cover the loans.
 They defaulted on the payments. Foreclosed.
 Sps Lantin filed a Complaint for Declaration of
Nullity and/or Annulment of Sale and/or Mortgage,
Reconveyance, Discharge of Mortgage, Accounting,
Permanent Injunction and Damages with the RTC
of Lipa City, Batangas.
FACTS

 Planters Development Bank moved to dismiss the


complaint on the ground of improper venue since the loan
agreements restricted the venue of any suit in Metro
Manila.
18. In the event of suit arising out of or in connection with this
mortgage and/or the promissory note/s secured by this mortgage, the
parties hereto agree to bring their causes of auction (sic) exclusively in
the proper court of Makati, Metro Manila or at such other venue chosen
by the Mortgagee, the Mortgagor waiving for this purpose any other
venue.

I/We further submit that the venue of any legal action arising out of
this note shall exclusively be at the proper court of Metropolitan
Manila, Philippines or any other venue chosen by the BANK, waiving
for this purpose any other venue provided by the Rules of Court
ISSUE

 Whether or not it was proper to dismiss the case on


the ground of improper venue.
RULING

 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.
 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.
RULING

 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.
In the case at bar…

 In the pertinent provisions of the several real estate


mortgages and promissory notes executed by Sps.
Lantin…
 Clearly, the words “exclusively” and “waiving for this
purpose any
18. In the event of other venue”
suit arising are
out of or restrictivewith
in connection andthis
used
mortgage and/or
advisedly the promissory
to meet note/s secured by this mortgage, the
the requirements.
parties hereto agree to bring their causes of auction (sic) exclusively in
the proper court of Makati, Metro Manila or at such other venue chosen
by the Mortgagee, the Mortgagor waiving for this purpose any other
venue.

I/We further submit that the venue of any legal action arising out of
this note shall exclusively be at the proper court of Metropolitan
Manila, Philippines or any other venue chosen by the BANK, waiving
for this purpose any other venue provided by the Rules of Court
RULING

 The dismissal on the ground of improper venue is


proper.

 It should have been exclusively filed in Metro


Manila.