CIVIL PROCEDURE

RULE 3 - 6
Presented by: Mark Anthony Mendoza
Marielle B. Yape
Aiza M. Esposa
Section 17. Death or Separation of a party who is a
public officer
When a public officer is a party in an action in his official Before a
capacity and during its pendency dies, resigns, or otherwise substitution is
ceases to hold office made, the party or
officer to be
. the action may be continued and maintained by or affected, unless
against his successor if, within thirty (30) days after the expressly
successor takes office or such time as may be granted assenting thereto,
shall be given
by the court, it is satisfactorily shown to the court
reasonable notice
by any party that there is a substantial need for of the application
continuing or maintaining it and that the successor therefor and
adopts or continues or threatens to adopt or accorded an
continue to adopt or continue the action of his opportunity to be
predecessor. heard
Section 18. Incompetency or Incapacity

If a party becomes incompetent or incapacitated, the court,

upon motion with notice, may allow the action to be continued
by or against the incompetent or incapacitated person assisted
by his legal guardian or guardian ad litem.
Section 19. Transfer of Interest

In case of any transfer of

interest,

unless the court upon

motion directs the person
the action may be to whom the interest is
continued by or against transferred to be
the original party, substituted in the action
or joined with the original
party.
Section 20. Action and Contractual Money Claims
When the action is for recovery of money arising from contract, express
or implied, and the defendant dies before entry of final judgment in the
court in which the action was pending at the time of such death,

IT SHALL NOT BE DISMISSED BUT SHALL INSTEAD BE ALLOWED

TO CONTINUE UNTIL ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGEMENT.

A favorable judgment obtained by the plaintiff therein shall be enforced

in the manner especially provided in these Rules for prosecuting claims
against the estate of a deceased person.
 Section 21. Indigent Party
A party may be authorized to litigate his action, claim or defense as Such authority shall include an
an indigent if the court, upon an ex parte application and hearing, is exemption from payment of
satisfied that the party is one who has no money or property docket and other lawful fees,
sufficient and available for food, shelter and basic necessities for and of transcripts of
himself and his family. stenographic notes which the
court may order to be furnished
Any adverse party may contest the grant of such authority at any time before him. The amount of the docket
judgment is rendered by the trial court. If the court should determine after hearing and other lawful fees which the
indigent was exempted from
that the party declared as an indigent is in fact a person with sufficient income or
paying shall be a lien on any
property, the proper docket and other lawful fees shall be assessed and collected by judgment rendered in the case
the clerk of court. If payment is not made within the time fixed by the court, favorable to the indigent, unless
execution shall issue or the payment thereof, without prejudice to such other the court otherwise provides.
sanctions as the court may impose.
RULE 141
1. The applicants gross income and that of applicant’s immediate family do not exceed an
amount double the monthly minimum wage of an employee over it.

2. The applicant does not own real property with a fair market value of more than
300, 000.00 pesos

3. The factual contentions have evidentiary support, or if specifically identified, will likely
have evidentiary support after availment of the modes of discovery under these rules.

4. The denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence, or if specifically so

identified, are reasonable based on belief or a lack of information.
Section 22. Notice to the Solicitor General
In any action involving the validity of any:
treaty
Law
Ordinance
executive order
presidential decree
rules or regulations

the court, in its discretion, may require the appearance of the Solicitor General
who may be heard in person or a representative duly designated by him.
Section 22. Notice to the Solicitor General

Office of the Solicitor-General represents the government of the

Philippines as agents in any litigation, proceeding, investigation, or
matter requiring the services of lawyers.
CIVIL PROCEDURE
RULE 4
Venue

is the place where the action is triable, whether real or personal. It

relates to the place of trial. It touches more of convenience of the
parties rather than the substance of the case. It is procedural and not
substantive.
Difference between Venue and Jurisdiction
Venue is the locality or place
Jurisdiction is the power of the
where the suit may be filed. It
courts to hear and decide a
relates to jurisdiction over the
case. It is the power conferred
person rather than subject
by law to the court and not
matter. Provisions relating to
into the judge presiding over
venue establish a relation
it.
between plaintiff and defendant.

A court cannot motu proprio dismiss a complaint on the ground of improper

venue since improper venue may be waived for failure to object to it.
Section 1. Venue of Real Actions

What is real Action?

They are actions affecting title to property, or where plaintiff seeks

recovery of real property, or one affecting title to real property.
Section 1. Venue of Real Actions
Let's enumerate some examples of real actions:

1. Recovery of possession
2. Partition or condemnation
3. Foreclosure of mortgage
4. Annulment or rescission of sale of real property
5. Forcible entry and detainer are real actions, regardless of
amount of damages involved.
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.
Section 2. Venue of Personal Actions

are those where a plaintiff

seeks the recovery of
Personal Actions personal property,
enforcement of contract or
recovery of damages
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 nonresident defendant

where he may be found, at the election of the
plaintiff.
CORPORATION AS PARTY

PROVINCE OR CITY WHERE ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS IS

SITUATED AS RECORDED IN ITS ARTICLE OF INCORPORATION
VOLUNTARY INSOLVENCY PROCEEDING
The venue under the Insolvency
law is the REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT of the province or city
where the insolvent debtor
resides
A corporation is considered a resident
of the place where its principal office is
located as stated in its Articles of
Incorporation
However, if the insolvent
corporation abandoned the
old office, the corporation is
considered a resident of the
city where its actual
principal office is currently
found.
Venue in Small Claims
The venue lies at the PLACE OF
RESIDENCE OF THE PLAINTIFF
OR THE DEFENDANT, at the
option of the plaintiff.
If the plaintiff is in the business of lending,
banking or similar activities, the case shall be
filed in the THE CITY OR MUNICIPALITY
WHERE THE DEFENDANT RESIDES and in
which the plaintiff has a branch office
If the plaintiff has no branch office
in the city or municipality where
the defendant resides, venue shall
lie at the PLACE OF RESIDENCE
OF THE PLAINTIFF OR THE
DEFENDANT AT THE
ELECTION OF THE PLAINTIFF
applying the provisions of the
Rules of Civil Procedure in
suppletory Character
Spouses Lantin vs Jane Lantion,
G.R. No. 160053, August 28, 2006
Facts:

Petitioners Renato and Angelina Lantin took several peso and dollar
loans from respondent Planters Development Bank and executed
several real estate mortgages and promissory notes to cover the
loans. They defaulted on the payments so respondent bank
foreclosed the mortgaged lots. The foreclosed properties, in partial
satisfaction of petitioners’ debt, were sold at a public auction where
the respondent bank was the winning bidder.
Spouses Lantin vs Jane Lantion,
G.R. No. 160053, August 28, 2006

On November 8, 2003, petitioners filed against Planters

Development Bank and its officers Elizabeth Umali, Alice Perce and
Jelen Mosca (private respondents), 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. Petitioners alleged that only their peso loans were
covered by the mortgages and that these had already been fully
paid, hence, the mortgages should have been discharged. They
challenged the validity of the foreclosure on the alleged non-
payment of their dollar loans as the mortgages did not cover
those loans.
Spouses Lantin vs Jane Lantion,
G.R. No. 160053, August 28, 2006

Private respondents moved to dismiss the complaint on the

ground of improper venue since the loan agreements
restricted the venue of any suit in Metro Manila.

On May 15, 2003, the respondent judge dismissed the case

for improper venue.
Spouses Lantin vs Jane Lantion,
G.R. No. 160053, August 28, 2006

Petitioners sought reconsideration. They argued that the trial

court in effect prejudged the validity of the loan documents
because the trial court based its dismissal on a venue
stipulation provided in the agreement. The motion for
reconsideration was denied and the lower court held that the
previous order did not touch upon the validity of the loan
documents but merely ruled on the procedural issue of
venue.
Spouses Lantin vs Jane Lantion,
G.R. No. 160053, August 28, 2006
Issue:

Whether or not the respondent judge committed grave abuse of

discretion when she dismissed the case for improper venue

Ruling:
No. 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.
Spouses Lantin vs Jane Lantion,
G.R. No. 160053, August 28, 2006

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.
Spouses Lantin vs Jane Lantion,
G.R. No. 160053, August 28, 2006

The pertinent provisions of the several real estate mortgages

and promissory notes executed by the petitioner respectively
read as follows:

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.
Spouses Lantin vs Jane Lantion,
G.R. No. 160053, August 28, 2006
Clearly, the words "exclusively" and "waiving for this purpose any
other venue" are restrictive and used advisedly to meet the
requirements.

They only assailed the terms and coverage of the mortgage

contracts. What petitioners claimed is that their peso loans had
already been paid thus the mortgages should be discharged, and
that the mortgage contracts did not include their dollar loans. Since
the issues of whether the mortgages should be properly discharged
and whether these also cover the dollar loans, arose out of the said
loan documents, the stipulation on venue is also applicable thereto.
Spouses Lantin vs Jane Lantion,
G.R. No. 160053, August 28, 2006

Considering all the circumstances in this controversy, the

respondent judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion,
as the questioned orders were evidently in accord with law
and jurisprudence.

the petition is DISMISSED. The assailed orders dated May

15, 2003 and September 15, 2003 of the Regional Trial
Court of Lipa City, Batangas, in Civil Case No. 2002-0555
are AFFIRMED.
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
Venue in Actions Quasi In Rem
Action affects personal status of plaintiff –
Quasi in rem residence of plaintiff

Action affects property of defendant in Philippines –

In rem location of property

Action is quasi in rem , 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 the said defendant located in the Philippines.
Venue in Actions Quasi In Rem

It may be commenced and tried in THE COURT WHERE

THE PLAINTIFF RESIDES

WHERE THE PROPERTY OR ANY PORTION THEREOF IS

SITUATED OR FOUND

Summon upon such defendant, may be served by extraterritorial service under section
17, Rule 14.
Section 4. When Rule not applicable

This Rule shall not apply

a. In those cases where a specific rule or law

provides otherwise

b. Where the parties have validly agreed in writing

before the filing of the action on the exclusive venue
thereof.
Diaz vs Adion, 219 SCRA 631
Facts:
On July 6, 1991, the Mindanao Kris, published in Cotabato City, published a news
article entitled “Toll of Corruption” which exposed alleged anomalies by key
officials in the Regional Office of DENR. Public officials alluded instituted a
separate civil and criminal actions arising from libel before City Prosecutor Office
and Regional Trial Court in Marawi City against petitioner. The City Prosecutor’s
Office dismissed the criminal case complaint for lack of jurisdiction since the said
complaint should be filed in Cotabato City. As for the civil complaint it was docketed
in the RTC of Marawi City, and that the defendant had filed their respective answers
w/ counterclaim; Diaz moved for the dismissal of the case on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction, it was their contention that the case should be filed in RTC of
Cotabato since it is where the private respondents who are all public officers
held their office, similarly the libelous publication was published in that place
Diaz vs Adion, 219 SCRA 631
Issue:
WON, RTC Marawi City has jurisdiction over the said case

Held:
No, not one of the respondents held office in Marawi City

An offended party who is at the same time a public official can only institute an
action arising from libel in 2 venues: the place where he holds office and place
where the alleged libelous articles were published

The venue is improperly laid.

Ochoa vs Chinabank, March 23, 2011

Facts:
Petitioner and Respondent Bank entered into a real estate
mortgage contract which involves a property located in
Parañaque City, further, said contract stipulates that their
exclusive venue will be Makati City

Due to some events, respondent bank foreclosed the real

estate mortgage of the petitioner
Ochoa vs Chinabank, March 23, 2011
Respondent Bank was able to acquire a special power to foreclose extrajudicially
the said property in Parañaque. Respondent Court filed a Petition for Extrajudicial
Foreclosure of Mortgage, which was filed with the Paranaque Court. (Not Makati)

The case was later on appealed to CA which ruled that the stipulated exclusive
venue of Makati City is binding only on petitioners’ complaint for Annulment
of Foreclosure, Sale, and Damages filed before the Regional Trial Court of
Parañaque City, but not on respondent bank’s Petition for Extrajudicial
Foreclosure of Mortgage, which was filed with the same court.
Ochoa vs Chinabank, March 23, 2011
Issue:
Whether the stipulated rules on venue between the parties apply to Petition for Extrajudicial
Foreclose of Mortgage.

Ruling:
No . The extrajudicial foreclosure sale of a real estate mortgage is governed by Act No. 3135, as
amended by Act No.4118, otherwise known as “An Act to Regulate the Sale of Property
Under Special Powers Inserted In or Annexed to Real-Estate Mortgages.” Sections 1 and 2
thereof clearly state:
Ochoa vs Chinabank, March 23, 2011
Sec. 2.
Said sale cannot be made legally outside of the province in which the property sold is
situated; and incase the place within said province in which the sale is to be made is
the subject of stipulation, such sale shall be made in said place or in the municipal
building of the municipality in which the property or part thereof is situated.

The case at bar involves petitioners’ mortgaged real property located in Parañaque City
over which respondent bank was granted a special power to foreclose extrajudicially.
Thus, by express provision of Section 2, the sale can only be made in Parañaque
City.
Ochoa vs Chinabank, March 23, 2011

The exclusive venue of Makati City, as stipulated by the parties and sanctioned by Section
4,Rule 4 of the Rules of Court, cannot be made to apply to the Petition for
Extrajudicial Foreclosure filed by respondent bank because the provisions of Rule 4
pertain to venue of actions, which an extrajudicial foreclosure is not.

Section 1, Rule 2 [of the Rules of Court] defines an action in this wise:

“Action means an ordinary suit in a court of justice, by which one party prosecutes another
for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong.”
Ochoa vs Chinabank, March 23, 2011
an extrajudicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage is initiated by
filing a petition not with any court of justice but with the office of the
sheriff of the province where the sale is to be made. By no stretch of
the imagination can the office of the sheriff come under the category
of a court of justice.

And as aptly observed by the complainant, if ever the executive

judge comes into the picture, it is only because he exercises
administrative supervision over the sheriff. But this administrative
supervision, however, does not change the fact that extra judicial
foreclosures are not judicial proceedings, actions or suits.
Ochoa vs Chinabank, March 23, 2011

With respect to the venue of extrajudicial foreclosure sales, Act No.

3135, as amended, applies, it being a special law dealing particularly
with extrajudicial foreclosure sales of real estate mortgages, and not
the general provisions of the Rules of Court on Venue of Actions.

Consequently, the stipulated exclusive venue of Makati City is

relevant only to actions arising from or related to the mortgage,
such as petitioners’ complaint for Annulment of Foreclosure,
Sale, and Damages.
Pacific Consultants International Asia vs
Schonfeld, GR No. 166920, February 19, 2007
Facts:
Schonfeld was employed by PCIJ, through Henrichsen, as Sector Manager
of PPI in its Water and Sanitation Department. And was assigned in the
Philippines. His salary was to be paid partly by PPI and PCIJ. He arrived in
the Philippines and assumed his position as PPI Sector Manager. He was
accorded the status of a resident alien. The DOLE granted the application
and issued the Permit to Schonfeld. Some time later, Schonfeld received a
letter from Henrichsen informing him that his employment had been
terminated for the reason that PCIJ and PPI had not been successful in the
water and sanitation sector in the Philippines. hours on October 1, 1999.
Pacific Consultants International Asia vs
Schonfeld, GR No. 166920, February 19, 2007
However, Henrichsen, requested Schonfeld to stay put in his job after
August 5, 1999, until such time that he would be able to report on certain
projects and discuss all the opportunities he had developed. He continued
his work with PPI until the end of business hours on October 1, 1999.
Pacific Consultants International Asia vs
Schonfeld, GR No. 166920, February 19, 2007
He filed with PPI several money claims. PPI partially settled some of his
claims(US$5,635.99), but refused to pay the rest. Schonfeld filed a
Complaint for Illegal Dismissal against PPI and Henrichsen with the Labor
Arbiter. He alleged that he was illegally dismissed; PPI had not notified
the DOLE of its decision to close one of its departments, which resulted in
his dismissal; and they failed to notify him that his employment was
terminated after August 4,1999. Respondent also claimed for separation pay
and other unpaid benefits. He alleged that the company acted in bad faith
and disregarded his rights
Pacific Consultants International Asia vs
Schonfeld, GR No. 166920, February 19, 2007
Issue:
WON the venue for filing the complaint was properly laid

Ruling:
Yes. The settled rule on stipulations regarding venue, as held by this Court in
the vintage case of Philippine Banking Corporation v. Tensuan, is that while
they are considered valid and enforceable, venue stipulations in a contract
do not, as a rule, supersede the general rule set forth in Rule 4 of the
Revised Rules of Court in the absence of qualifying or restrictive words.
They should be considered merely as an agreement or additional forum,
not as limiting venue to the specified place. They are not exclusive but,
rather permissive.
Pacific Consultants International Asia vs
Schonfeld, GR No. 166920, February 19, 2007

If the intention of the parties were to restrict venue, there must be

accompanying language clearly and categorically expressing their
purpose and design that actions between them be litigated only at
the place named by them.
In the instant case, no restrictive words like "only," "solely,"
"exclusively in this court," "in no other court save —," "particularly,"
"nowhere else but/except —," or words of equal import were stated
in the contract.33 It cannot be said that the court of arbitration in
London is an exclusive venue to bring forth any complaint arising
out of the employment contract
Pacific Consultants International Asia vs
Schonfeld, GR No. 166920, February 19, 2007

Philippine Court may assume jurisdiction over the case if it

chooses to do so; provided, that the following requisites are met:
1. that the Philippine Court is one to which the parties may
conveniently resort to;
2. that the Philippine Court is in a position to make an intelligent
decision as to the law and the facts; and,
3. that the Philippine Court has or is likely to have power to
enforce its decision
PBCom vs Li, April 5, 2005
Facts:

PBCom filed a complaint against respondents in the RTC of Manila for the
collection of a deficiency. Petitioner alleged therein that respondents obtained
a loan from it and executed a continuing surety agreement in favor of
petitioner for all loans, credits, etc that were extended or may be extended in
the future to respondents. Petitioner granted a renewal of said loan upon
respondent’s request. It was expressly stipulated therein that the venue
for any legal action that may arise out of said promissory note shall be
Makati City, “to the exclusion of all other courts…” Respondents allegedly
failed to pay said obligation upon maturity. Thus, petitioner foreclosed the real
estate mortgage executed by respondents, leaving a deficiency balance.
PBCom vs Li, April 5, 2005

Respondents moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground of

improper venue, invoking the stipulation contained in the last
paragraph of the promissory note with respect to the
restrictive/exclusive venue.
The trial court denied said motion asseverating that petitioner had
separate causes of action arising from the promissory note and the
continuing surety agreement. Thus, [under] Rule 4, Section 2, of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, venue was properly
laid in Manila. An MR of said order was likewise denied.
PBCom vs Li, April 5, 2005

On appeal, the CA ruled that respondents’ alleged debt was based

on the Promissory Note, which had provided an exclusionary
stipulation on venue “to the exclusion of all other courts.” The
parties’ Surety Agreement, though silent as to venue, was an
accessory contract that should have been interpreted in
consonance with the Promissory Note.

Issue:
WON the action against the sureties is covered by the restriction on
venue stipulated in the PN
PBCom vs Li, April 5, 2005
Ruling:

YES; Since the cases pertaining to both causes of action are restricted to Makati
City as the proper venue,

Section 2 of Rule 4 of the ROC provides that personal actions must be

commenced and tried

(1) in the place where the plaintiff resides, or

(2) where the defendant resides, or

(3) in case of non-resident defendants, where they may be found, at the choice
of the plaintiff.
PBCom vs Li, April 5, 2005

This rule on venue does not apply when the law specifically
provides otherwise, or when — before the filing of the
action — the contracting parties agree in writing on the
exclusive venue thereof. Venue is not jurisdictional and may
be waived by the parties. A stipulation as to venue does not
preclude the filing of the action in other places, unless
qualifying or restrictive words are used in the agreement.
PBCom vs Li, April 5, 2005

This no-segregation principle is based on Article 1374 of the

Civil Code, which we quote:

“Art. 1374. The various stipulations of a contract shall be

interpreted together, attributing to the doubtful ones that sense
which may result from all of them taken jointly.”
PBCom vs Li, April 5, 2005

The aforementioned doctrine is applicable to the present case.

Incapable of standing by itself, the SA can be enforced only in
conjunction with the PN. The latter documents the debt that is sought
to be collected in the action against the sureties. The circumstances
that related to the issuance of the PN and the SA are so intertwined
that neither one could be separated from the other. It makes no sense
to argue that the parties to the SA were not bound by the stipulations
in the PN.
Waiver of Improper Venue
1. Express waiver
 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

Implied waiver
 to be understood and inferred from the actions of the party in question
Dacoycoy vs IAC, 195 SCRA 641 (1993)
Facts:
Dacoycoy filed before RTC Antipolo a complaint against Rufino de Guzman
for annulment of two (2) deeds of sale involving a parcel of rice land situated in Barrio
Estanza, Lingayen,Pangasinan, the surrender of the produce thereof and damages
for refusal to have said deeds of sale set aside upon demand

.RTC Executive Judge issued an order to confer with respondent trial judge on the
matter of venue. RTC dismissed the complaint on the ground of improper venue. It
found that petitioner's action is a real action as it sought not only the
annulment of the aforestated deeds of sale but also the recovery of ownership
of the subject parcel of rice land which is outside the territorial jurisdiction of
the trial court.
Dacoycoy vs IAC, 195 SCRA 641 (1993)
Facts:

Petitioner appealed to the Intermediate Appellate Court (CA) which affirmed the order of
dismissal of his complaint. Petitioner claims that the right to question the venue of an
action belongs solely to the defendant and that the court or its magistrate does not
possess the authority to confront the plaintiff and tell him that the venue was
improperly laid, as venue is waivable.

De Guzman asserts that "every court of justice before whom a civil case is lodged is not even
obliged to wait for the defendant to raise that venue was improperly laid. The court can
take judicial notice and motu proprio dismiss a suit clearly denominated as real action and
improperly filed before it. . . . the location of the subject parcel of land is controlling pursuant
to Sec. 2, par.(a), Rule 4 of the New Rules of Court . Petition for review was granted.
Dacoycoy vs IAC, 195 SCRA 641 (1993)
Issue:

Whether or not the trial court motu proprio dismiss a complaint on the
ground of improper venue

Ruling:

The motu proprio dismissal of petitioner's complaint by respondent

trial court on the ground of improper venue is plain error, obviously
attributable to its inability to distinguish between jurisdiction and
venue .Questions or issues relating to venue of actions are basically
governed by Rule 4 of the Revised Rules of Court.
Dacoycoy vs IAC, 195 SCRA 641 (1993)
Ruling:

It is said that the laying of venue is procedural rather than

substantive. It relates to the jurisdiction of the court over the person
rather than the subject matter. Provisions relating to venue establish
a relation between the plaintiff and the defendant and not between
the court and the subject matter.

Venue relates to trial not to jurisdiction, touches more of the

convenience of the parties rather than the substance of the heart.
Dacoycoy vs IAC, 195 SCRA 641 (1993)
Jurisdiction treats of the power of the court to decide a case on
the merits; while venue deals on the locality, the place where
the suit may be had.

In the instant case, even granting for a moment that the action of
petitioner is a real action, respondent trial court would still have
jurisdiction over the case, it being a regional trial court vested with
the exclusive original jurisdiction over "all civil actions which involve
the title to or possession of, real property, or any interest therein .
Dacoycoy vs IAC, 195 SCRA 641 (1993)
• Dismissing the complaint on the ground of improper venue
is certainly not the appropriate course of action at this stage
of the proceeding, particularly as venue, in inferior courts as
well as in the courts of first instance (now RTC), may be
waived expressly or impliedly. Where defendant fails to
challenge timely the venue in a motion to dismiss as provided by
Section 4 of Rule 4 of the Rules of Court, and allows the trial to
be held and a decision to be rendered, he cannot on appeal or
in a special action be permitted to challenge belatedly the
wrong venue, which is deemed waived.
Dacoycoy vs IAC, 195 SCRA 641 (1993)
Thus, unless and until the defendant objects to the venue in a
motion to dismiss, the venue cannot be truly said to have been
improperly laid, as for all practical intents and purposes, thevenue,
though technically wrong, may be acceptable to the parties for
whose convenience therules on venue had been devised. The trial
court cannot pre-empt the defendant's prerogative toobject to the
improper laying of the venue by motu proprio
dismissing the case.Decision: The decision of the Intermediate Appellate
Court, now Court of Appeals is hereby nullified and set aside. The
complaint filed by petitioner before the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo,
Branch LXXI is revived and reinstated. Respondent court is enjoined to
proceedt herein in accordance with law
How to Question Improper Venue
1. Motion to Dismiss (Rule 16, Sec 1c)

Section 1. Grounds. — Within the time for but before filing the answer
to the complaint or pleading asserting a claim, a motion to dismiss may
be made on any of the following grounds
(c) That venue is improperly laid;
How to Question Improper Venue

Affirmative Defense in Answer (Rule 16, Sec 6)

Section 6. Pleading grounds as affirmative defenses. — If no motion to

dismiss has been filed, any of the grounds for dismissal provided for in
this Rule may be pleaded as an affirmative defense in the answer and,
in the discretion of the court, a preliminary hearing may be had thereon
as if a motion to dismiss had been filed.
Words to Ponder