TOPIC: MOTION TO DISMISS – IMPROPER o It held that as a rule, the venue

VENUE of an action may be agreed upon

by the parties. However, in this
PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT BANK v. case, the Spouses Ramos’
SPOUSES RAMOS contended that the contracts
G.R. No. 228617 | September 20, 2017 | Reyes, between them and PDB take the
Jr., J. form of an adhesion contract.
o As such, the rule regarding the
DOCTRINE: Restrictive stipulations on venue venue of real actions well be
shall restrict the venue of any action or suit that applied to avoid ruling on the
may arise from the contract to a particular place, merits without any evidence that
to the exclusion of all other jurisdictions. would sufficiently support the
same.
FACTS: o It also found that the allegations
 The Spouses Victoriano and Melanie in the complaint are sufficient to
Ramos (Spouses Ramos) applied for constitute a cause of action.
several credit lines with Planters  The PDB filed a motion for
Development Bank (PDB) for the reconsideration while the Spouses
construction of a warehouse in Nueva Ramos filed a motion to declare PDB in
Ecija. default. The RTC denied both motions.
 The application was approved and was  PDB filed a petition for certiorari with the
secured by a real estate mortgage over CA, imputing grave abuse of discretion
properties owned by the spouses. on the RTC for denying its motion to
 The Spouses Ramos requested for an dismiss, despite the fact that the venue
additional loan and PDB, despite was improperly laid.
promising to extend them a further loan  The CA denied the petition.
of P140 Million, only released P25  PDB filed a petition for review on
Million. This additional loan was also certiorari with the SC.
secured by a real estate mortgage.
 The Spouses Ramos were not able to ISSUE:
pay their obligations as they fell due, Whether or not venue was improperly laid, thus
hence, PDB filed a Petition for warranting the dismissal of the petition?
Extrajudicial Foreclosure of Real Estate
Mortgage before the RTC of San Jose, HELD: Yes, the contract provided that all actions
Nueva Ecija. arising therefrom shall be filed exclusively in
 The Spouses Ramos filed a Complaint Makati City. Since the parties intended the
for Annulment of Real Estate Mortgages stipulation on venue to be restrictive, the case
and Promissory Notes, Accounting and should be dismissed on the ground of improper
Application of Payments, Injunction with venue.
Preliminary Injunction and TRO against  As a general rule, the venue of real
PDB and its officers also before the RTC actions shall be in the court which has
of San Jose, Nueva Ecija. jurisdiction over the area where the real
 Instead of filing an Answer, PDB filed an property or a portion thereof is situated.
Urgent Motion to Dismiss, alleging that The venue of personal actions, on the
the venue of the action was improperly other hand, shall be in the court where
laid considering that the real estate the plaintiff or any of the principal
mortgages signed by the parties plaintiffs resides, or where the defendant
contained a stipulation that any suit or any of the principal defendants
arising therefrom shall be filed in Makati resides, or in the case of a non-resident
City only. It further noted that the defendant where he may be found, at
complaint failed to state a cause of action the election of the plaintiff.
and must therefore be dismissed.  The general rules on venue, however,
 The RTC denied the Urgent Motion to admit of exceptions:
Dismiss. (1) Where a specific rule or law
provides otherwise; or
 (2) Where the parties have meaningless the very purpose of the
validly agreed in writing stipulation on venue.
before the filing of the action  The Spouses Ramos, in fact, never really
on the exclusive venue assailed the validity of the mortgage
thereof. contracts and promissory notes. What
 Stipulations on venue may be permissive they were only claiming was that the said
or restrictive. When the stipulation is contracts contain stipulations which are
restrictive, the suit may be filed only in the illegal, immoral and otherwise contrary to
place agreed upon. If it is permissive, the customs or public policy. These matters
suit may be filed not only in the place do not affect the validity of the mortgage
agreed upon but also in the places fixed contracts, hence, the stipulation on
by law. venue should have been upheld.
 In determining whether the stipulation is
permissive or restrictive, what is PETITION IS DENIED.
essential is the ascertainment of the
intention of the parties respecting the TOPIC: MOTION TO DISMISS – IMPROPER
matter. VENUE
 The mere stipulation on the venue of an
action is not enough to preclude the LEY CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT
parties from bringing a case in other CORPORATION v. SEDANO
venues. The parties must be able to show G.R. No. 222711 | August 23, 2017 | Perlas-
that such stipulation is exclusive. In the Bernabe, J.
absence of qualifying to restrictive words,
the stipulation should be deemed as DOCTRINE: The prevailing rule on objections to
merely an agreement on an additional improper venue is that the same must be raised
forum, not as limiting venue to the at the earliest opportunity, as in an answer or a
specified place. motion to dismiss; otherwise, it is deemed
 In the present case, the real estate waived.
mortgages provided that the causes of
action shall be brought “exclusively in the FACTS:
proper court/s of Makati, Metro Manila,  Ley Construction (LCDC) filed a
the mortgagor waiving for this purpose complaint for collection of sum of money
any other venue.” and damages against respondent
 The words “exclusively” and “waiving for Sedano, before the RTC of Valenzuela.
this purpose any other venue” are  LCDC alleged that it leased a parcel of
restrictive. Therefore, the employment of land located at Pasay from the Philippine
the same language in the subject National Construction Corporation
mortgages signifies the clear intention of (PNCC).
the parties to restrict the venue of any  LCDC then subleased a portion of the
action or suit that may arise out of the said property to Sedano for a term of ten
mortgage to a particular place, to the (10) years.
exclusion of all other jurisdictions.  Sedano failed to pay the rent due for the
 The RTC acted with grave abuse of period of August to December 2011 and
discretion in denying the motion dismiss despite demands, refused to settle his
on the ground of improper venue, obligations; hence, this complaint.
especially when the said issue had been  In his Answer with Third-Party Complaint,
raised at the most opportune time, that is, Sedano countered that:
within the time for but before the filing of o He religiously paid rent to LCDC
an answer. until PNCC demanded that the
 The CA likewise erred in ruling that the rent be paid directly to it, in view
validity of the stipulation on venue of LCDC’s eviction from the
depends on whether the mortgage is subject property by virtue of a
valid which means there has to be a full- court order;
blown hearing and presentation of o During the period from August to
evidence. This interpretation renders December 2011, he remitted the
rentals to PNCC. Should he be
 found liable to LCDC, he instrument, restrict the filing of said
maintained that the RTC should actions in a certain exclusive venue.
hold PNCC liable to reimburse to  An exclusive venue stipulation is valid
him the amounts he paid as and binding, provided that:
rentals; hence, the third-party (a) The stipulation on the
complaint; and chosen venue is exclusive in
o The venue was improperly laid nature or intent;
since the lease contract provides (b) It is expressed in writing by
that “all actions or cases filed in the parties thereto; and
connection with case shall be (c) It is entered into before the
filed with the RTC of Pasay, filing of the suit.
exclusive of all others.” Hence,  The Court found that all the above-
the complaint should be mentioned elements are present and that
dismissed on the ground of the questioned stipulation in the lease
improper venue. contract is a valid stipulation that limits
 Sedano also interposed a counterclaim, the venue of the cases to the courts of
seeking reimbursement from LCDC for Pasay City.
the overpaid amounts he made to the  The fact that the stipulation generalized
latter. that all actions or cases of the
 The RTC-Valenzuela granted aforementioned kind shall be filed with
respondent’s motion and dismissed the the RTC of Pasay, to the exclusion of all
complaint on the ground of improper other courts, does not mean that the
venue. same is a stipulation which attempts to
o It held that the stipulation in the curtail the jurisdiction of all other courts.
lease contract regarding venue  Jurisdiction is conferred by law and not
is void insofar as it limits the filing subject to stipulation of the parties.
of cases with the RTC of Pasay, Hence, following the rule that the law is
even when the subject matter deemed written into every contract, the
jurisdiction over the case is with said stipulation should not be construed
the MeTC. as a stipulation on jurisdiction but rather,
o However, with respect to the one which merely limits venue.
filing of cases cognizable by the  Since LCDC’s action was one for
RTCs, the stipulation validly collection of sum of money in an amount
limits the venue to the RTC of that falls within the exclusive jurisdiction
Pasay. of the RTC, then it is the RTC of Pasay
o As for the alleged waiver of the which has jurisdiction and the complaint
right to question the venue, the is dismissible on the ground of improper
RTC found that there was no venue, without prejudice, however, to its
waiver when Sedano raised refiling in the proper court.
improper venue as a defense in  Furthermore, Sedano timely raised the
his Answer. ground of improper venue since it was
one of the affirmative defenses raised in
ISSUE: his Answer with Third-Party Complaint.
Whether or not the RTC of Valenzuela erred in As such, it cannot be said that he had
ruling that venue was improperly laid? waived the same.

HELD: No, since there was an exclusive PETITION IS DENIED.

stipulation on venue in the lease contract, the
case can only be brought in the RTC of Pasay to TOPIC: MOTION TO DISMISS – IMPROPER
the exclusion of all other courts. VENUE
 As a general rule, the venue for personal
actions shall lie with the court which has RADIO FINANCE COMPANY v. SPOUSES
jurisdiction where the plaintiff or the NOLASCO
defendant resides, at the election of the G.R. No. 227146 | November 14, 2016 | Reyes,
plaintiff. As an exception, however, J.
parties may, through a written
DOCTRINE: The RTC may not motu proprio
dismiss the case on the ground of improper HELD: No, jurisdiction in this case is vested with
venue. It is a matter personal to the parties and the RTC, hence, it incorrectly dismissed the case
without their objection at the earliest opportunity, on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The case was
as in a motion to dismiss or in the answer, it is likewise brought in the proper venue pursuant to
deemed waived. the stipulation in the promissory note of the
parties.
FACTS:  The RTC confused the terms
 Romeo and Reynaldo Nolasco “jurisdiction” and “venue”, which are
(Nolascos) are debtors of Radiowealth completely different concepts. There is
Finance Company, Inc. (Radiowealth), a no question that the RTC has jurisdiction
domestic financing corporation. The over the complaint filed by Radiowealth
Nolascos maintain a residence in considering the nature of the case and
Mandaluyong City and Radiowealth has the amount involved.
its principal place of business in the same  “Jurisdiction” is the court’s authority to
city. hear and determine a case. The court’s
 The Nolascos secured a loan from jurisdiction over the nature and subject
Radiowealth, payable in installments, as matter of an action is conferred by law.
evidenced by a promissory note and a o B.P. 129, as amended, provides
chattel mortgage over a Fuso Super that the RTC shall exercise
Great Dropside Truck. exclusive original jurisdiction
 The Nolascos defaulted in the payment over all cases in which the
of the installments which caused the demand or the value of the
entire amount to become due and property in controversy exceeds
demandable. P300,000, or in such other cases
 Radiowealth repeatedly demanded from in Metro Manila, where the
the Nolascos the payment of the balance demand exceeds P400,000.
of the loan, but the latter would not take o Since the amount involved is
heed and even refused to surrender P1.6 Million, the same is within
possession of the motor vehicle. the jurisdiction of the RTC. It is,
 Radiowealth filed a complaint for sum of therefore, error for the RTC to
money and damages with application for claim lack of jurisdiction over the
writ of replevin with the RTC of San case.
Mateo, Rizal, praying that the Nolascos  “Venue” pertains to the place where the
be ordered to pay their balance, or, in the case may be filed. Unlike jurisdiction,
alternative, surrender the possession of venue may be waived and subjected to
the motor vehicle. the agreement of the parties provided
 The RTC issued an Order directing the that it does not cause them
issuance of the writ of replevin. inconvenience.
Subsequently, however, it issued an  Under the Rules of Court, the venue of
Amended Order dismissing motu proprio personal actions is allowed to be
the case for lack of jurisdiction. It ruled subjected to the stipulation of the parties
that since neither of the parties reside for as long as it does not defeat the
within the jurisdiction of the trial court, the purpose of the Rules which primarily
case must be dismissed. aims for the convenience of the parties to
 The motion for reconsideration of the dispute.
Radiowealth was denied.  In this case, in the promissory note
 Radiowealth filed a petition for review on executed and signed by the parties, there
certiorari before the SC, challenging the is a provision which states that “any
order of the RTC on pure questions of action to enforce payment of any sums
law. due under this Note shall exclusively be
brought in the proper court within the
ISSUE: NCR or in any place where Radiowealth
Whether or not the RTC correctly dismissed the has a branch/office, at its sole option.”
case?  Thus, the filing of the case in San Mateo,
Rizal, where Radiowealth maintains a
 branch is proper and should have been of that case were sold in a public auction
respected by the RTC especially when in which Compas was the winning bidder
there has been no objection by the who had the sale annotated on both titles.
Nolascos.  The final deed of sale was then issued to
 Moreover, the RTC may not motu proprio Compas after PMMSI failed to redeem
dismiss the case on the ground of the properties.
improper venue. It is a matter personal to  In 2003, the TCT under PMMI’s name
the parties and without their objection at was cancelled and a new one was issued
the earliest opportunity, as in a motion to under EOI’s name.
dismiss or in the answer, it is deemed  In 2005, Compas filed a petition for the
waived. cancellation of TCT Nos. S-100612 and
S-100613 and for the issuance of new
PETITION IS GRANTED. titles in his name before the RTC-Las
Piñas. However, upon learning that TCT
TOPIC: MOTION TO DISMISS – IMPROPER No. S-100612 has been cancelled and a
VENUE new title had been issued under EOI’s
name, Compas filed a Motion to Admit
OPPEN v. COMPAS Amended Petition.
G.R. No. 203969 | October 21, 2015 | Mendoza,  EOI filed two (2) motions to dismiss the
J. Amended Petition of Compas.
o The first motion to dismiss was
DOCTRINE: Failure to challenge timely the filed on the ground of failure to
venue in a motion to dismiss is deemed a waiver state a cause of action. This was
of such objection. denied by the RTC-Las Piñas on
the ground that Compas could
FACTS: rightfully enforce its lien on the
 The subject matter of the case involves property under EOI’s name.
two (2) parcels of land covered by TCT o The second motion to dismiss
Nos. S-100612 and S-100613, which was filed on the ground that
were registered in the name of Philippine under Sec. 108 of P.D. 1529 or
Merchant Marine School, Inc. (PMMSI). the Property Registration Decree
 In 1984, the said properties were levied (PRD), the court with jurisdiction
upon in favor of Manufacturers Building, was the court where the original
Inc. (MBI) pursuant to the decision and registration was filed and
writ of execution issued by the MeTC- docketed.
Branch 7.  The RTC denied the second motion to
 In 1986, the notice of levy in favor of MBI dismiss on the ground that Sec. 108 of
was annotated at the back of the TCT of the PRD was inapplicable and that it was
the properties. vested with jurisdiction under Sec. 2
 Meanwhile, in 1987, Ernesto Oppen, Inc. thereof.
(EOI), pursuant to a writ of execution  The CA, on a petition for certiorari,
issued by the MeTC-Branch 15, sustained the jurisdiction of the RTC-Las
annotated its lien on TCT No. S-100612. Piñas over the amended petition.
A certificate of sale was subsequently
issued in its favor and was likewise ISSUE:
annotated on the TCT. Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction to hear
 The property was later sold in a public the amended petition of EOI?
auction with EOI as the highest bidder
and the final deed of sale in its favor was HELD: Yes, Sec. 2 of the PRD and not Sec. 108
issued after the lapse of the redemption is applicable. Sec. 2 provides that the RTC shall
period. have exclusive jurisdiction over registration
 In 2002, an alias writ of execution was proceedings, including petitions filed after the
issued by the MeTC-Branch 7 in original registration of title.
connection with the case between  Sec. 108 of the PRD can only apply if
PMMSI and MBI. The properties subject there is unanimity among the parties, or
 that there is no adverse claim or serious All petitions or motions led under this
objection on the part of any party in Section as well as any other provision of
interest. this Decree after original registration
 EOI cannot insist that the action should shall be filed and entitled in the original
have been filed with the RTC where the case in which the decree or registration
original registration was filed and issued was entered.”
considering that the case involved
controversial issues. The parties,  EOI’s second motion to dismiss was
therefore, lacked unanimity as EOI even supposed to be on the ground of lack of
filed a motion to dismiss for failure to jurisdiction. It, however, alleges that the
state a cause of action, claiming that its petition should not have been filed with
Torrens Title was indefeasible and could the RTC-Las Piñas, but with the RTC
not be collaterally attacked. were the original title was filed and
 A closer scrutiny of Sec. 2 and Sec. 108 issued. Based on the allegations
of the PRD will show that the former thereof, the second motion was invoking
pertains to the grant of jurisdiction to the ground of improper venue.
RTCs while the latter refers to the venue  As such, the second motion to dismiss
where the action to be instituted, to wit: was rightfully denied as EOI waived the
ground of improper venue after it had
“Section 2. Nature of registration filed its first motion to dismiss pursuant
proceedings; jurisdiction of courts. – to the Omnibus Motion Rule.
Judicial proceedings for the registration o The ROC likewise provides that
of lands throughout the Philippines shall a motion attacking a pleading,
be in rem and shall be based on the order, judgment or proceedings
generally accepted principles underlying shall include all objections then
the Torrens system. available, and all objections not
so included shall be deemed
Courts of First Instance shall have waived.
exclusive jurisdiction over all  EOI only insisted that the proper venue
applications for original registration of was the RTC where the original case
title to lands, including improvements was entered after its first motion to
and interests therein, and over all dismiss alleging the failure to state a
petitions 􏰄􏰄led after original registration cause of action was filed and denied.
of title, with power to hear and determine  The ground of improper venue was
all questions arising upon such deemed waived and could no longer be
applications or petitions. The court questioned by EOI because the issue on
through its clerk of court shall furnish the venue was not raised in its prior motion
Land Registration Commission with two to dismiss.
certified copies of all pleadings, exhibits,
orders, and decisions 􏰄led or issued in PETITION IS DENIED.
applications or petitions for land
registration, with the exception of TOPIC: MOTION TO DISMISS – IMPROPER
stenographic notes, within five days VENUE
from the 􏰄ling or issuance thereof.”
LATORRE v. LATORRE
“Sec. 108. Amendment and alterations G.R. No. 183926 | March 29, 2010 | Nachura, J.
of certificates. – No erasure, alteration,
or amendment shall be made upon the DOCTRINE: Actions affecting title to or
registration book after the entry of a possession of real property or an interest therein
certificate of title or of a memorandum (real actions) shall be commenced and tried in the
thereon and the attestation of the same proper court that has territorial jurisdiction over
by the Register of Deeds, except by the area where the real property is situated.
order of the proper Court of First
Instance. FACTS:
 Petitioner Generosa Latorre (Generosa)
filed before the RTC of Muntinlupa a
 complaint for collection and declaration absolute sale, the case was in fact a real
of nullity of deed of absolute sale with action affecting title to and interest over
application for injunction against her own the property.
son, respondent Luis Latorre (Luis) and  Luis further argued that since all of
one Ifzal Ali (Ifzal). Generosa’s claims were anchored on her
 Generosa averred that: claim of ownership of one-half (1/2)
o Luis and Ifzal entered into a portion of the subject property and since
contract of lease over a Makati the same was located in Makati, the case
property. Under the said should have been filed before the RTC of
contract, Luis, as lessor, Makati.
erroneously declared that he  Ifzal also filed a motion to dismiss on the
was the absolute and registered ground of want of jurisdiction, asserting
owner of the subject property that he was immune from suit because he
when in fact, she and Luis were was an officer of the Asian Development
co-owners of the property in Bank, an international organization.
equal shares.  The RTC denied Luis’s motion to
o She and Luis executed their dismiss, ruling that the nature of an action
respective deeds of donation whether real or personal was determined
conveying the subject property in by the allegations in the complaint,
favor of The Porfirio D. Latorre irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff
Memorial & Fr. Luis Esteban was entitled to recover upon the claims
Latorre Foundation, Inc. (the asserted – a matter resolved only after,
Foundation). Thus, the TCT of and as a result of, a trial.
the property was issued in the  Luis then filed an answer ad cautelam
name of the Foundation. insisting, among others, that the case
o Subsequently, Generosa and was a real action and that the venue was
Luis executed separate Deeds of improperly laid.
Revocation of Donation and  The RTC dismissed Generosa’s claim
Reconveyance of the subject against Ifzal because it found that the
property, consented to by the dispute was clearly between Generosa
Foundation. and Luis.
o The deeds of revocation were  The RTC, after trial, ruled in favor of Luis.
not registered hence, the subject It held that the case should have been
property remained in the name of filed in the RTC of Makati as it involves
the Foundation. recovery of possession of a real property
o To protect her rights as co- in Makati.
owner, she demanded from Ifzal  Generosa filed a petition for review on
the payment of her share of the certiorari before the SC.
rentals, which the latter refused
to heed. ISSUE: Whether or not the case was properly
o Luis later caused the annotation dismissed?
of an adverse claim on the TCT,
claiming full ownership over the HELD: Yes, since the case involved is an action
same by virtue of a deed of affecting title to or possession of real property or
absolute sale. an interest therein (real action), it must be
o This deed was a falsified commenced and tried in the court that has
document and that her signature territorial jurisdiction over the area where the real
was forged by Luis. Furthermore, property is situated. In this case, in the RTC of
that she never received any Makati.
amount as consideration for her  The action in the RTC, other than for
share of the subject property. collection, was for the declaration of
 Luis filed a motion to dismiss on the nullity of the deed of absolute sale
ground that the venue of the case was involving the subject property which is
improperly laid. He stressed that while located in Makati. The venue of such
the complaint was denominated as one
for collection and declaration of nullity of
 action is thus, the RTC of Makati and not
the RTC of Muntinlupa.
 The nature of an action is determined by
the allegations in the complaint itself,
rather than by its title or heading. Also,
what determines the venue of a case is
the primary objective for the filing of the
case.
 In Generosa’s complaint, she sought the
nullification of the deed of absolute sale
on the strength of two (2) basic claims
that (1) she did not execute the deed in
favor of Luis; and (2) thus, she still owned
one half (1/2) of the subject property.
Indubitably, the complaint is a real action
involving the recovery of the subject
property on the basis of her co-ownership
thereof.
 The RTC also committed a procedural
blunder when it denied Luis’s motion to
dismiss on the ground of improper venue.
It insisted that a trial on the merits be
conducted even when it was already
pointed out in the motion to dismiss that
venue was improperly laid.
 Luis should have also filed a petition for
certiorari and/or prohibition when his
motion to dismiss was denied inasmuch
as such denial was done without
jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction or
with grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack of jurisdiction.
 Despite this procedural lapse, however, it
cannot be said that Luis waived his
objections to the fact of improper venue.
Notably, after his motion to dismiss was
denied, Luis filed a motion for
reconsideration to contest such denial.
Even in his answer ad cautelam, he stood
his ground that the case ought to be
dismissed on the basis of improper
venue.

PETITION IS DENIED.