VENUE OF CASES

In the Complaint, you will also see in which venue the case is to be filed, or is actually filed.

What is venue? 

Venue is the area where the case is to filed. It refers to geographic location. It is different from subject matter jurisdiction which refers to the court where the case is to be filed based on the hierarchy of courts, whether it should be filed with the MTC, RTC, CA or SC. 

Rules on venue

Here are the rules on venue under Rule 4 of the ROC:

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. (1)

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. (2)

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. (3)

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. (3a, 5a)

Venue of real actions

A real action is one in which the issue is title to, interest in, or possession of real property including partition of real property and foreclosure of real estate mortgage. Your memory aid for this is TIP-PF.

Note that not every action that involves real property is a real action. It refers only to situations when the issue is one of the five that I mentioned. Again, these are title to, interest in, possession of real property, the partition of real property, and foreclosure of real estate mortgage.

We need to know this because real actions are filed in the court that has territorial jurisdiction over the real property. For instance, where the property at issue is located in Bataan, the case should be filed in Bataan even though none of the parties reside in Bataan.

This is known as local venue.

Venue of personal actions

All other actions are personal actions, which may be filed either in the place where the Plaintiff resides or where the Defendant resides, at the option of the Plaintiff. 

This is known as transitory venue.

Venue against nonresident Defendants

This rule refers to jurisdiction over the person of the Defendant. As we studied earlier, the concept of jurisdiction has several aspects, including jurisdiction over the persons (the parties) and jurisdiction over the subject matter.

Our basic premise is that we can bring personal actions only against persons who are either residents of the Philippines or who may be found in the Philippines. If they are non-residents, but they are physically present in the Philippines for a short visit, for example, then they can be sued and brought under the jurisdiction of Philippine courts. If they are residents, definitely they can be brought under the jurisdiction of Philippine courts. These of course presuppose that summons is validly served upon them, which we will discuss later.

But what if a person is not a resident and could not be found in the Philippines? The general rule is that the courts cannot acquire jurisdiction over his person. There is no way for him to be served with summons. And the court cannot proceed with the case, much less, render judgment.

But there are two exceptions:

(a) When the action affects the personal status of the Plaintiff;

(b) When the action affects the property of the non-resident Defendant which is located within the Philippines.

In these two situations, the Court can proceed because it has jurisdiction over the res. 

Venue when stipulated

I also stated that venue is determined by the above rules. However, the parties can agree on a venue that is neither the Plaintiff's nor the Defendant's residence for personal actions, or which is not the place where the real property is located for real action. 

In Section 4, cited above, stipulations on venue are valid as long as three requisites are present:

1. There is a written agreement
2. The agreement was made before the controversy arose
3. The agreement must contain words of exclusivity.

An example of a venue stipulation is this: "The parties agree that in case a dispute arises out of this contract, any action must be filed exclusively within the courts of Makati City."

The Supreme Court has held that words of exclusivity (such as "exclusively", "only", and "solely") must be used for the stipulation to be recognized as exclusive. Otherwise, the stipulation though valid will not be deemed as an agreement on an exclusive venue. The venue agreed upon will only be an addition to that which is already provided for in the Rules.

When the law or rule provides a specific venue

There are situations when the law or rule provides for a specific venue that the parties cannot stipulate on.

For instance, in quo warranto cases, the petition may be brought in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals or the Regional Trial Court which has jurisdiction over the territorial area where the respondent or where any of the respondents resides. When the action is commenced by the Solicitor General, the petition may be brought in the Regional Trial Court of the City of Manila, the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court (Sec. 7, Rule 66).

Differences between venue and jurisdiction

1. Jurisdiction is conferred bylaw. Venue is determined by the Rules of Court.

2. Objections to subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived. Objections to venue may be waived.

3. Jurisdiction cannot be the subject of stipulation. Venue can be the subject of stipulation.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE: Ley Construction and Development Corporation vs. Marvin Medel Sedano, GR No. 222711, August 23, 2017.

Facts:

Ley Construction rented a 50,000-square-meter parcel of land from the Philippine National Construction Corporation (PNCC). The land is located in Pasay City.

Ley Construction subleased 14,000 square meters of the land to Marvin Medel Sedano. Sedano agreed to pay P1.2 million a month to Ley Construction as rent. The lease was for a 10-year period.

Ley Construction sued Sedano before the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela, claiming that the latter did not pay rent from August to December 2011. 

In his Answer, Sedano stated that he paid Ley Construction until July 2011 when PNCC informed him that Ley Construction had been evicted from the property due to non-payment of rentals, so he gave his payments to PNCC starting in August 2011. 

He filed a third-party complaint against PNCC so that if he is found liable to Ley Construction, the latter can proceed against PNCC for relief.

Also in his Answer, Sedano raised the affirmative defense of improper venue. He cited a stipulation in Section 21 of the Lease Contract stating that "all actions or cases filed in connection with this case shall be filed with the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, exclusive of all others."

Ley Construction argued that the stipulation is void because it is a stipulation on jurisdiction, not venue. Furthermore, Sedeno sought several affirmative reliefs from RTC-Valuenzuela when he asked for extensions of time to file Answer, set up counterclaims, and impleaded PNCC as a third-party defendant.

RTC Valenzuela's ruling - Venue is improper, so the case should be dismissed. 

Issue: Was the venue improperly laid, hence, the dismissal of the case is proper?

Held: No. Venue was properly laid.

Ratio:

"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 non-resident defendant where he may be found, at the election of the plaintiff.

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.

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. (Emphases supplied)

Based on these provisions, the venue for personal actions shall - as a general rule - lie with the court which has jurisdiction where the plaintiff or the defendant resides, at the election of the plaintiff. As an exception, parties may, through a written instrument, restrict the filing of said actions in a certain exclusive venue. In Briones v. Court of Appeals, the Court explained:

Written stipulations as to venue may be restrictive in the sense that the suit may be filed only in the place agreed upon, or merely permissive in that the parties may file their suit not only in the place agreed upon but also in the places fixed by law. As in any other agreement, what is essential is the ascertainment of the intention of the parties respecting the matter.

As regards restrictive stipulations on venue, jurisprudence instructs that it must be shown that such stipulation is exclusive. In the absence of qualifying or restrictive words, such as "exclusively," "waiving for this purpose any other venue," "shall only" preceding the designation of venue, "to the exclusion of the other courts," or words of similar import, the stipulation should be deemed as merely an agreement on an additional forum, not as limiting venue to the specified place.

In Pilipino Telephone Corporation v. Tecson, the Court held that an exclusive venue stipulation is valid and binding, provided that: (a) the stipulation on the chosen venue is exclusive in nature or in intent; (b) it is expressed in writing by the parties thereto; and (c) it is entered into before the filing of the suit.

After a thorough study of the case, the Court is convinced that all these elements are present and that the questioned stipulation in the lease contract, i.e., Section 21 thereof, is a valid venue stipulation that limits the venue of the cases to the courts of Pasay City. It states:

Should any of the party (sic) renege or violate any terms and conditions of this lease contract, it shall be liable for damages. All actions or case[s] filed in connection with this lease shall be filed with the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, exclusive of all others.

The above provision clearly shows the parties' intention to limit the place where actions or cases arising from a violation of the terms and conditions of the contract of lease may be instituted. This is evident from the use of the phrase "exclusive of all others" and the specification of the locality of Pasay City as the place where such cases may be filed.

Notably, the fact that this stipulation generalizes that all actions or cases of the aforementioned kind shall be filed with the RTC of Pasay City, to the exclusion of all other courts, does not mean that the same is a stipulation which attempts to curtail the jurisdiction of all other courts. It is fundamental that jurisdiction is conferred by law and not subject to stipulation of the parties. Hence, following the rule that the law is deemed written into every contract, the said stipulation should not be construed as a stipulation on jurisdiction but rather, one which merely limits venue. Moreover, "[t]he parties are charged with knowledge of the existing law at the time they enter into the contract and at the time it is to become operative." Thus, without any clear showing in the contract that the parties intended otherwise, the questioned stipulation should be considered as a stipulation on venue (and not on jurisdiction), consistent with the basic principles of procedural law.

In this case, it is undisputed that petitioner's action was one for collection of sum of money in an amount that falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC. Since the lease contract already provided that all actions or cases involving the breach thereof should be filed with the RTC of Pasay City, and that petitioner's complaint purporting the said breach fell within the RTC's exclusive original jurisdiction, the latter should have then followed the contractual stipulation and filed its complaint before the RTC of Pasay City. However, it is undeniable that petitioner filed its complaint with the Valenzuela-RTC; hence, the same is clearly dismissible on the ground of improper venue, without prejudice, however, to its refiling in the proper court.

That respondent had filed several motions for an extension of time to file a responsive pleading, or that he interposed a counterclaim or third-party complaint in his answer does not necessarily mean that he waived the affirmative defense of improper venue. The prevailing rule on objections to the improper venue is that the same must be raised at the earliest opportunity, as in an answer or a motion to dismiss; otherwise, it is deemed waived. Here, the respondent timely raised the ground of improper venue since it was one of the affirmative defenses raised in his Answer with a Third-Party Complaint. As such, it cannot be said that he had waived the same.

You may watch my video lectures on civil procedure on my YouTube Channel www.youtube.com/@profchato. Feel free to share this with your classmates in law school and bar review.