1997 Rules on Civil Procedure Rule 4

2001 Edition < DRAFT COPY; Please check for errors > Venue of Actions

Rule 4
VENUE OF ACTIONS

Q: Define venue.
A: VENUE is the place where the action must be instituted and tried. (Ballentine’s Law Dict., 2nd
Ed., p. 1132)

EXAMPLE: The venue of the action is in Davao, or the venue of the action is in Manila. If you file
the action in other places, that is improper or wrong venue. In criminal cases, that is called territorial
jurisdiction – the place where the crime was committed. But in civil cases, venue is not the same with
jurisdiction. We do not call it territorial jurisdiction. We call it venue.

This is where it is important to determine whether the action is real or personal for the purpose of
venue. The venue of real action is stated in Section 1 and the venue for personal action is stated in
section 2.

VENUE OF REAL ACTIONS

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[a], 2[a]a)

While it is true that the rule on venue is new however, the rule on venue even before 1997 as earlier
as August 1, 1995, Rule 4 of the 1964 Rules has already been amended by the administrative Circular
No. 13-95, but now it incorporated under the Rules of 1997.

Now, when the action is real, we distinguish whether it is forcible entry and unlawful detainer or
action publiciana or action reinvidicatoria. If it is accion publiciana or reinvidicatoria, the proper venue
is the one which has jurisdiction over the area wherein the real property involved or a portion thereof
is situated. Of course, the RTC is divided into areas. every branch has its own designated area of
responsibility.

Q: Why does the law say “tried in the proper court?”

A: It is because proper court will now be the MTC or the RTC, depending on the assessed value of
the property. If the assessed value is P20,000 or less, MTC yan. If it is over P20,000, it should be in the
RTC.

Now in the case of forcible entry and unlawful detainer, paragraph 2 will apply – that is, MTC – it
is in the municipality or city wherein the real property involved or a portion thereof is situated. So,
kung saan iyong real property, doon din ang venue. Now, it is possible that for a property be in the
boundary of two towns. Example: one half is part of Davao City and the other half is in the
municipality of Panabo. So, if you would like to file a case for forcible entry against somebody, you
have two choices. You can file it in the MTC of Panabo or in the MTC of Davao City.

Now, let’s go to personal actions.

VENUE OF REAL ACTIONS

Sec. 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.
(2[b]a)

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA 95

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure Rule 4
2001 Edition < DRAFT COPY; Please check for errors > Venue of Actions

Iyan ang tinatawag natin na TRANSITORY ACTION . The venue will now depend on the residence
of the parties. In the civil action, the venue is (1) the place where the plaintiff resides or (2) where the
defendant resides, at the election of the plaintiff. So, puwede kang pumili sa dalawa.

Now, suppose, there are four (4) plaintiffs and 4 defendants and the 4 plaintiffs reside in 4 different
cities or municipalities. So ang choice mo ng venue ay walo (8) becuae the law says, “where the
plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs or where the defendant or any of the principal defendants
reside…”

So, kung maraming defendants at iba-iba ang lugar at maraming plaintiffs, the residence of each
one could be the proper venue.

NOTE: PRINCIPAL PLAINTIFF, PRINCIPAL DEFENDANT. Because there is such a thing as

nominal defendant and nominal plaintiff – iyun bang formal lang.

EXAMPLE of a nominal party: When a party wants to file a case to annul an execution sale of to
annul a levy, normally it pleads the sheriff as party. But the sheriff is not the principal party but is only
a NOMINAL PARTY. So, the residence of the sheriff is not considered the sheriff being a nominal party
only.

So, just imagine if there are 4 plaintiffs and 4 defendants, iba-ibang cities. There 8 choices of venue.
That is the original concept of forum shopping. I will cite the original case which traced the history of
forum-shopping na kung saan ako convenient, doon sko mag-file. That is the original concept – which
is legal and legitimate. The trouble is, the concept of forum shopping degenerated into a malpractice ,
where a lawyer, mag-file ng case, sabay-sabay. Ayan! That is why there is a SC case which I will later
discuss where Justice Panganiban cited the history of forum shopping. (Dean is referring to the case of
FIRST PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL BANK vs. CA (252 SCRA 259), January 24, 1996)

Forum shopping is legitimate and valid but the trouble is, the practice acquired another unsavory
meaning, where a lawyer will file simultaneous cases. Kaya nga nasira – from a legitimate practice to
an act of malpractice. That is the history of forum shopping.

However, there are instances when it is easy to distinguish whether the action is real or personal
and there are also instances when it is difficult.

EXAMPLE: An action for annulment of a contract of sale or rescission of contract of sale of real
property. Generally, an action for annulment or rescission is a personal action. But suppose , I will file a
complaint to annul or rescind a contract of a deed of sale over a parcel of land. I’m from Davao and
you’re from Davao. But I would like to annul the sale of a land which I made to you one year ago
which land is situated in Digos and the purpose of my action is to recover the ownership of that land.
Then, that is a real action because the primary object of the suit is to recover the ownership of real
property, di ba? It seems to be personal but in reality it is a real action. So the venue is governed by
Section 2.

But there are also actions na King tingnan mo parang real but in reality, they are personal actions.
Like what happened in the case of

LA TONDEÑA DISTILLERS INC vs. PONFERRADA

264 SCRA 540 [1996]

FACTS: Judee entered into a contract where she committed herself to sell her land to
Maying. And Judee even placed a lis pendens on the property. But later Judee said, “Gua bo
ai!” (chinese for ‘ayoko na!’) Nag-back out ba! So Maying will file a case against Judee for
specific performance to compel her to sign the deed of sale.
Ang question diyan, ano ba ito? real or personal action? Because if it is real action, the
complaint should be filed in the place where the land is situated. If the action is personal, it
can be filed in Davao City where both of them are residents.

ISSUE: Is this real or personal action?

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA 96
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure Rule 4
2001 Edition < DRAFT COPY; Please check for errors > Venue of Actions

HELD: It is a PERSONAL ACTION because you are not questioning my ownership.

Here, the plaintiff recognizes that the defendant is still the owner. Kaya nga he is still filing
the case to compel him to sell.
Thus, it should be filed in the residence of the parties. “The complaint is one for specific
performance with damages. Private respondents do not claim ownership of the lot but in
fact recognized title of defendants by annotating a notice of lis pendens. In one case, a similar
complaint for specific performance with damages involving real property, was held to be a
personal action, which may be filed in the proper court where the party resides. Not being
an action involving title to or ownership of real property, venue, in this case, was not
improperly laid before the RTC of Bacolod City.” (Adamos vs. Tuazon 25 SCRA 30 [1968])

So it is not really an action affecting title or ownership because you are still recognizing the title of
the owner of the property. It is different when I’m no longer recognizing it, like recovery or
reinvidicatoria. These are gray areas, or sometimes very hard to distinguish whether the action is real
or personal.

Q: [Taken from Remedial Law Reviewer by Nuevas] Where several or alternative reliefs are sought in an
action, and the reliefs prayed for are real and personal, how is venue determined?
A: Where several or alternative reliefs are prayed for in the complaint, the nature of the action a s
real or personal is determined by the primary object of the suit or by the nature of the principal claim.
Thus, where the purpose is to nullify the title to real property, the venue of the action is in the province
where the property lies, notwithstanding the alternative relief sought, recovery of damages, which is
predicated upon a declaration of nullity of the title. (Navarro vs. Lucero, 100 Phil. 146)
Where a lessee seeks to establish his right to the hacienda, which was subsequently sold, for the
purpose of gathering the crops thereon, it is unnecessary to decide whether the crops are real or
personal property, because the principal claim is recovery of possession of land so that he may gather
the fruits thereof. (LTC vs. Macadaeg, 57 O.G. 3317)

Now, going back to Section 2.

RESIDENCE OF THE PARTIES

We will now go the issue of residence. Where is the residence of the parties? Because residence in
law could mean DOMICILE OR LEGAL RESIDENCE, it could be ACTUAL OR PHYSICAL
RESIDENCE.

Alam mo, iyong legal domicile, you may not be there but there is intention to go back there
someday. Alright, with the exception of only one case, the word ‘residence’ and ‘venue’ has been
uniformly interpreted by the SC to mean ACTUAL or PHYSICAL RESIDENCE not legal domicile.
Alright, there are so many case already: CO vs. CA (70 SCRA 296); FULE vs. CA (14 SCRA 189);
HERNANDEZ vs. RURAL BANK OF THE PHIL (81 SCRA 75); RAYMOND vs. CA (166 SCRA 50);
ESCUERTE vs. CA (193 3CRA 54).

Pareho ang ruling niyan. EXCEPT for one case decided way back in 1956 – the case of

CORRE vs. CORRE

100 Phil 221

FACTS: An American who resides in San Francisco who came to the Philippines rented
an apartment in Manila to sue his wife who is a Filipina. The wife is from Mindanao. And
then the American husband filed the case in Manila because residente man daw siya in
Manila – because he rented daw an apartment in Manila. Now, if you follow the rule, tama
man ang husband ba.

HELD: You are not a resident of Manila. Your residence is in San Francisco – that is your
domicile. So that is to compel the American to file the case in the residence of the wife
rather than the wife going to Manila.

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA 97

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure Rule 4
2001 Edition < DRAFT COPY; Please check for errors > Venue of Actions

So the case of CORRE is the only exception where the SC said, “residence means domicile.” All the
rest, physical! In the case of CORRE, maybe the SC there was just trying to help the Filipina. If we will
interpret the rule on venue as physical, it is the Filipina who will be inconvenienced. If we say legal
residence is the venue, it is the American husband who would be forced to go to the Mindanao to file.
And we should favor our own kababayan. Yan siguro ang nangyari because that was the only
exception eh.

RESIDENCE OF A CORPORATION

Under Rule 1, a corporation can sue and be sued. But what is the residence of a corporation? Under
the corporation law, the residence of a corporation is the place where its head or main office is situated
– yung head office ba which is usually stated in the articles of incorporation.

Now, let’s go to some interesting cases on this issue:

CLAVECILLA RADIO SYSTEM vs. ANTILLON

19 SCRA 39 [1967]

FACTS: Clavecilla was sued in Cagayan de Oro City. Clavecilla questioned the venue
because its head office is in Manila. The plaintiff argued that it can be sued because it has a
branch in Cagayan.

ISSUE: Is a corporation a resident of any city or province wherein it has an office or

branch?

HELD: NO. Any person, whether natural or juridical, can only have one residence.
Therefore, a corporation cannot be allowed to file personal actions in a place other than its
principal place of business unless such a place is also the residence of a co-plaintiff or
defendant.

The ruling in the case of ANTALLON was reiterated in the 1993 case of YOUNG AUTO SUPPLY
CO. vs. COURT OF APPEALS (223 SCRA 670)

Because the law said “where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs..” So if the corporation is
suing with someone from Davao, even if my head office is in Manila, I can file because of the residence
of my co-plaintiff or the residence of the defendant. But outside of that, a corporation cannot sue
outside of its head office because its residence is there. That is the case of YOUNG AUTO SUPPLY.

“OR IN THE CASE OF A NON-RESIDENT DEFENDANTS WHERE HE MAY BE FOUND”

Suppose the defendnt is not residing here in the Philippines but is just on vacation and you want to
sue him. What is now the point of reference?

Did you notice the phrase “or in the case of a non-resident defendants where he may be found.”
Now what does that mean? It means to say that the defendant is not actually residing in the Philippines
but he is temporarily around because he is found in the Philippines. Example is a balikbayan who is
still on vacation.

PROBLEM: Suppose a Filipino who is already residing abroad decided to come back this Christmas
for a vacation. When he landed at the Manila Domestic Airport and you are his friend and the first
thing he requested you is, “wala pa akong Philippine peso, puro pa dollars. So pahiramin mo muna
ako. I will pay you in one week’s time once I have my dollars exchanged to pesos.” How much do you
want? He borrowed from you P15,000.00. One week later, still he has not paid you and obviously it
seems he will not pay you. So you decided to sue him while he is around to collect the case advance of
the P15,000 that you gave him. So, where is the venue of the action?
A: The law says, generally where the plaintiff resides or where the defendant resides. The trouble
is, the defendant has no residence here because he is already residing abroad. But he is temporarily
here in the Philippines.

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA 98

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure Rule 4
2001 Edition < DRAFT COPY; Please check for errors > Venue of Actions

You can sue him where he may be found. If he decides to stay in Cebu, that is where the proper
venue rather his permanent residence. So where he may be found is the alternative venue. The phrase
“where he may be found” means where he may be found here in the Philippines for a non-resident
defendant but temporarily staying in the Philippines.

Q: Suppose a defendant is a non-resident and he is not even here. Like for example, your neighbor
borrowed money from you and the nest thing you heard is that he left the country. He has already
migrated to the states. Of course you know his address there. Can you sue him in the Philippine court,
a defendant who is no loner residing here and is not found in the Philippines?
A: NO, you cannot. Charge it to experience.

Q: Why can you not sue a person not residing here in the Philippines and is not found here in the
first place?
A: There is no way for Philippine courts to acquire jurisdiction over his person. Otherwise, he will
not be bound by the decision.

But in our discussion on the element of jurisdiction: subject matter, person, res and issues, I told you
that the res or the thing in dispute is important because sometimes it takes the place of jurisdiction over
the person of the defendant. So even if the Philippine court cannot acquire jurisdiction over the person
of the defendant but the subject of the controversy (res) is in the Philippines, then the non-resident
defendant can also be sued in the Philippines. The court can now acquire jurisdiction over the res,
subject and since the res is here, the judgment can be enforced. It is not a useless judgement anymore.

EXAMPLE: He is there but he is the owner of a piece of land here. I want to file a case to recover
ownership over the land here in the Philippines, yaan!
Q: Can I sue the non-resident defendant?
A: YES under Section 3. Even if the person is abroad, the res of the property in dispute is here and if
he loses the case the judgment can be enforced – transfer the property to you. So it is not a useless
judgment. That is what Section 3 is all about.

Sec. 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, (2[c]a)

Q: What is the difference between the non-resident defendant in Section 2 and the non-resident
defendant in Section 3?
A: In Section 2, the non-resident defendant may be found in the Philippines. But in Section 3, he
does not reside and is not found in the Philippines. So, physically, he is not around.

Q: What actions can be filed against a non-resident defendant who is not even found here in the
Philippines?
A: There are two (2):
1.) The action that affects the personal status of the plaintiff; or
2.) The action affects the property or any portion thereof of said defendants is located here in
the Philippines.

ACTION THAT AFFECTS THE PERSONAL STATUS OF THE PLAINTIFF

EXAMPLE: A young child was abandoned by his illegitimate father. The illegitimate father left the
Philippines for good. The son wants to file a case against the father for compulsory recognition, at least
to improve his status.

Q: Can the child file a case for compulsory acknowledgment here in the Philippines against the
father for compulsory acknowledgment?
A: YES because the action involves the person status of the plaintiff. The res is the status of the
plaintiff who happens to be in the Philippines.

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA 99

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure Rule 4
2001 Edition < DRAFT COPY; Please check for errors > Venue of Actions

THE ACTION AFFECTS THE PROPERTY OR ANY PORTION THEREOF OF SAID DEFENDANTS
IS LOCATED HERE IN THE PHILIPPINES

Example: The defendant who is already abroad owns a piece of land located here in the Philippines
and I want to recover the ownership of the piece of land.

Q: What is the res?

A: The res is the land which is situated here in the Philippines. Therefore I can sue that defendant
even if he is there because the court can acquire jurisdiction over the res.

In order to validly sue in the Philippine court, a defendant who is no longer residing here and is no
longer found here, the action must be: 1.) action in rem; or 2.) at least quasi-in rem, because if the action
iis for compulsory recognition, that is actually an action in rem. If the suit in involves a property here in
the Philippines, at least that is an action quasi-in rem.

But if the action is purely in personam, then there is no way by which you can sue him. Example is
an action to collect an unpaid loan.
Q: Where is now the proper venue of the action against the non-residents?
A: The law says where the plaintiff resides – action which affects the personal status of defendants,
where the property of the defendant located here in the Philippines

Sec. 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)

A.) IN THOSE CASES WHERE A SPECIFIC RULE OR LAW PROVIDES OTHERWISE;

So, when there is a special rule or law on venue which applies only to certain types of cases, then
that rule will apply rather than Rule 4.

Q: What cases which provides for venue of the action which may be different from what Rule 4
says?
A: The following:

1.) A civil action arising from LIBEL under Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code.

Libel could give rise to a civil action for damages. It is considered under the RPC as one of
the independent civil actions. The criminal action for libel shall be filed simultaneously or
separately with the RTC of the:
a.) province or city where the libelous article is printed and first published; or
b.) where any of the offended parties actually resides at the time of the commission of the
offense.
If one of the offended party is a public officer, whose office is in the City of Manila at the
time of the commission of the offense, the action shall be filed (a) in the RTC of Manila, or (b) in
the RTC of the province where he held office at the time of the commission of the offense.

2.) Section 5 (4), Article VIII, 1987 Constitution – The SC may order a change of venue or place of trial
to avoid a miscarriage of justice as what happened in the case of Mayor Sanchez.

So these are the examples on the special rules. Alright…

B.) WHERE THE PARTIES HAVE VALIDLY AGREED IN WRITING BEFORE

THE FILING OF THE ACTION ON THE EXCLUSIVE VENUE THEREOF.

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA 100

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure Rule 4
2001 Edition < DRAFT COPY; Please check for errors > Venue of Actions

So, it is possible that A and B will enter into contract providing for suits involving the violation of
the contract, the venue shall be in this particular place. Take note that the stipulation must be in writing
and it is there even before the filing of the action. Alright…

EXAMPLE: Contracts of banks and other financing companies. Sometimes it says there that in case
of suits arising out of these contract, the action shall be filed in the City of Makati or Manila which is
neither the residence of the parties.

Q: Now, can we agree to file a case other that were the parties reside?
A: YES because the law says, we can agree on a place where the action will be filed provided it is in
writing and it is stipulated even before the filing of the action.

POLYTRADE CORP. vs. BLANCO

30 SCRA 187

FACTS: Charles and Joshua are both residing here in Davao City. Joshua borrowed
money from Charles, and Joshua executed a promissory note in favor of Charles which says,
“I promise to pay Charles the sum of P200,000 one year from today. In case of a suit arising
from this promissory note, the parties agree to sue and be sued in the City of Manila.”
When the note matured, Joshua did not pay. Charles filed a case to collect the unpaid
loan here in Davao City. Charles challenged the venue. According to Charles, the venue is
correct because both of us are residing here in Davao City and under Rule 4, the venue is
where I reside or you reside, at my option. Both of us are residing here so I sued you here.
Defendant Joshua says, no since there is a stipulation we both agreed upon that in cases
of litigation, the parties agree to sue and be sued in the City of Manila. So Manila is the
correct venue.

ISSUE: Who is correct in this case? A the plaintiff or B the defendant?

HELD: Plaintiff is correct notwithstanding the stipulation. Why? When the parties
stipulated on the venue of the civil action, other that those found in the Rule of Court, the
stipulated venue is considered merely as an ADDITIONAL venue in addition to where the
parties reside. Unless the stipulation contains RESTRICTIVE words which shows the
intention of the parties to limit the place stipulated as the exclusive venue.

In other words, the parties agree to sue and be sued in the City of Manila, even if so, the venue of
the action is where the plaintiff resides or where the defendant resides in accordance with Rule 4, and
the third venue is according to the stipulation of the parties. So, the case here has three (3) venues of
action. Mamili ka sa tatlong venues because there is nothing in the agreement that the parties intended
that Manila is the only exclusive venue. There is no restrictive word.

I will change the PROBLEM: Suppose the stipulation contains this statement, “in case of suit arising
out of this promissory note or contract, the parties agree to sue and be sued exclusively in the City of
Manila,” yaan! Or, “to sue and be sued in the City of Manila only.” The addition of the words
“exclusively” or “only” shows the intention of the parties to limit venue of the action only in that place.
Therefore you cannot apply Rule 4, Sections 1-3. So, in this case, Joshua can move to dismiss the case
because the venue is exclusive.

So in the second exception where there is an agreement in writing on the exclusive venue, the word
exclusive is very important as taken in the ruling in POLYTRADE vs. BLANCO. So if the venue is not
exclusive, Rule 4 still applies and the stipulated venue is just an additional one.

Of course, there are stipulations which you can see clearly the intention of the parties to limit the
venue only in that place. But sometimes, there are stipulations in which it is difficult to decipher the
real intention of the parties whether exclusive or not. Examples of clear stipulations which calls for the
application of the POLYTRADE ruling: in the City of Manila only or the suit shall be filed in the City of
Manila and in no other place.

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA 101

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure Rule 4
2001 Edition < DRAFT COPY; Please check for errors > Venue of Actions

However, there are cases in which you cannot find the word exclusive or the word only, and yet the
SC said it seems the intention of the parties to limit the venue as exclusive as what happened in the
1994 case of

GESMUNDO vs. JRB REALTY CORP

234 SCRA 153

FACTS: This involves a lease contract which contain a stipulation on venue. Here is the
language of the lease contract: “venue for all suits, whether for breach hereof or damages or any
cause between the LESSOR and the LESSEE, and persons claiming under each, being the courts of
appropriate jurisdiction in Pasay City…”
In other words, if there is a case, they agreed to file it in the court of Pasay City.

ISSUE: Is this intention of the parties to make Pasay City an exclusive venue?

HELD: Pasay City is the exclusive venue. “It is true that in Polytrade Corporation v. Blanco,
a stipulation that ‘The parties agree to sue and be sued in the City of Manila’ was held to
merely provide an additional forum in the absence of any qualifying or restrictive words.
But here, by laying in Pasay City the venue for all suits, the parties made it plain that in no
other place may they bring suit against each other for breach contract or damages or any
other cause between them and persons claiming under each of them.” In other words, the
intention of the parties is to make Pasay City the exclusive venue.

There are some cases in the SCRA where there is no restrictive word but the SC interpreted it as
restrictive. So it is in conflict with the POLYTRADE ruling because in POLYTRADE, the stipulated
place must be exclusive. Among the cases which seems to conflict with the ruling in POLYTRADE are
the following:

BAUTISTA vs. DE BORJA (18 SCRA 476)

HOECHST vs. TORRES (83 SCRA 297)

This conflict was resolved in the case of PHIL. BANKING vs. TENSUAN (228 SCRA 385) where the
SC ruled that the ruling in BAUTISTA vs. DE BORJA and HOECHST PHILS. vs. TORRES has been
rendered obsolete by the POLYTRADE ruling and subsequent cases reiterated it. So the ruling in
POLYTRADE is the correct ruling. Forget what the SC said in the abovementioned two cases.

SWEET LINES vs. TEVES

83 SCRA 361

FACTS: This is a Cagayan de Oro case which involves Sweet Lines, a shipping company
with the head office in Cebu. The respondent Teves is the former City Fiscal of Davao City,
former Mayor and became judge of CFI of Cagayan de Oro City.
There was a group of passenger who rode on the Sweet Lines bound for Cebu City.
During the trip, they were given a crude treatment by the officers of the vessel. When they
came back in Cagayan de Oro City, they filed a suit for damages against Sweet Lines. They
file dht ecase in the former CFI, now RTC, of Cagayan de Oro City because the plaintiffs are
residents of Cagayan de Oro City.
Sweet Lines filed a motion to dismiss questioning the venue of the action because in the
ticket issued by Sweet Lines, it is stipulated that “…in case of a civil action arising from the
contract of carriage, the venue of the action shall be the City of Cebu ONLY and in no other place.”
So there is a restrictive word. Obviously the lawyers of Sweet Lines knew about Polytrade
because they moved to dismiss the case citing this case.
Judge Teves denied the motion to dismiss the case despite the stipulation. According to
him, it is unfair. If I will dismiss the case based on this stipulation, the aggrieved parties will
be discouraged in going to Cebu. It is very expensive and they will be inconvenienced. But,
if the case will go on in Cagayan de Oro, it will not inconvenienced Sweet Lines because
they have their branch office, their manage and their own lawyer.

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA 102

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure Rule 4
2001 Edition < DRAFT COPY; Please check for errors > Venue of Actions

ISSUE: Whether or not Cagayan de Oro is the proper venue.

HELD: YES. Judge Teves was correct in not dismissing the case.
First of all, the stipulation is placed in the ticket. These people never even bothered to
read this. Nakalagay na iyan diyan eh. So either you take it or you leave it. Therefore, the
passengers did not have a hand in preparing that stipulation. So the contract is a contract of
adhesion.
Second, again for the sake of equity, to be fair that these poor people will be compelled
to go to Cebu to file a case there. They will be discouraged. It is very expensive to go back
and forth to Cebu. Whereas, Sweet Lines has the resources, the means, the lawyers here in
Cagayan to litigate. Therefore, it would be inequitable to compel them or to apply the
stipulation there.

The ruling in SWEET LINES is an exception to POLYTRADE despite the exclusive stipulation. The
SC said that the refusal of the court to apply it is correct. There is no grave abuse of discretion on the
part of Judge Teves.

ARQUERO vs. FLOJO

168 SCRA 540

FACTS: Arquero here is lawyer and the municipal mayor of the municipality of Sta.
Teresita, Cagayan Valley. He sent a telegram through the RCPI branch in Cagayan
addressed to Manila. Meron siyang pabor na hihingi-in sa Congressman: I will go there to
Manila, I will see you in your office on this particular date. So pinadala niya iyong telegrama.
When he went to the office of the congressman after the few days, nagalit pa yung
congressman sa kanya, “So you are here to ask for a favor for your own. Ikaw na ang
nangangailangan, pati telegrama ako pa ang pabayarin mo?! Collect pa!” Arquero was stunned eh
because he paid the telegram. How come naging collect? In effect, he was embarrased.
Pagbalik niya sa Cagayan, f-in-ile-an niya ng damages ang RCPI. But in the RCPI
telegraph form, there is a stipulation that “venue of any action shall be the court of Quezon City
alone and in no other courts.” So the venue is restrictive. With that, Arquero filed an action for
damages in the RTC of Aparri Cagayan and RCPI moved to dismiss for improper venue,
stipulation according to the POLYTRADE case eh.
The trial court moved to dismiss the case because of this restrictive stipulation. Arquero
went to the SC citing the case of SWEET LINES where despite the fact of a restrictive
stipulation, SC refused to apply the POLYTRADE ruling.

HELD. The ruling in Sweet Lines vs. Teves does not apply. You are bound by the
stipulation. Why? You are a lawyer eh. Tarantado ka, bakit ka pumirma?! You are a lawyer.
You know all these things. Why did you sign?
So nayari siya. That was taken against him ha! As a matter of fact, it is there you can
read it. It is in the front, pumirma ka pa sa ilalim. In the case of Teves, you cannot read it.
Nasa likod, very small. In other words, you agree to be bound. As a lawyer, you should
know what you are signing.

Now, he last point to remember about venue is the difference between venue and jurisdiction. In
criminal cases, there is no distinction between jurisdiction and venue. The place of the filing of the case
is where the crime is committed or where the essential elements were committed. Therefore, when the
cases is committed in Davao City, you cannot file a case in Cotabato City. Cotabato has no territorial
jurisdiction over the case.

But in civil cases, if you violate Rule 4, do not say that the court has no jurisdiction. You only say,
venue was improperly laid. Yaan! So, if I will file an ejectment case against you in Davao City before
the MTC but I am ejecting you from your apartment in Tagum, do not make the mistake. If I move to
dismiss on the ground that the MTC has no jurisdiction, you are crazy. The MTC has jurisdiction over
all unlawful detainer cases. Ang walang jurisdiction is the RTC. The correct ground is: venue is
improperly laid. But if you file the unlawful detainer case in the RTC, you question the jurisdiction of
the court, not the place.
Property of LAKAS ATENISTA 103
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure Rule 4
2001 Edition < DRAFT COPY; Please check for errors > Venue of Actions

So then, what is the main distinction?

Q: Distinguish JURISDICTION from VENUE.

A: The following are the distinctions:

1.) JURISDICTION refers to the authority the court to hear the case, whereas
VENUE refers only to the place where the action is brought or tried;

2.) JURISDICTION over the subject matter cannot he waived; whereas

VENUE is waivable and can be subject of agreement;

3.) JURISDICTION is governed by substantive law – Judiciary Law, BP 129; whereas

VENUE is governed by procedural law – Rule 4 of the Rules of Court;

4.) JURISDICTION refers to the relation of the parties to the court; whereas
VENUE refers to the relation between the parties; and

5.) JURISDICTION limits the court’s authority; whereas

VENUE limits plaintiff’s rights.

BAR QUESTION: State in what instance the jurisdiction and venue coincide.
A: In CRIMINAL CASES because in criminal cases, venue is territorial jurisdiction. But in civil
cases, jurisdiction and venue are two different things. They do not coincide.


published by

LAKAS ATENISTA 1997 – 1998: FOURTH YEAR: Anna Vanessa Angeles • Glenda Buhion • Joseph Martin Castillo •
Aaron Philip Cruz • Pearly Joan Jayagan • Anderson Lo • Yogie Martirizar • Frecelyn Mejia • Dorothy Montejo • Rowena
Panales • Regina Sison • Ruby Teleron • Marilou Timbol • Maceste Uy • Perla Vicencio • Liberty Wong •
Jude Zamora • Special Thanks to: Marissa Corrales and July Romena

SECOND YEAR: Jonalyn Adiong • Emily Aliño • Karen Allones • Joseph Apao • Melody Penelope Batu •
Gemma Betonio • Rocky Cabarroguis • Charina Cabrera • Marlon Cascuejo • Mike Castaños • Karen de Leon •
Cherry Frondozo • Jude Fuentes • Maila Ilao • Ilai Llena • Rocky Malaki • Jenny Namoc • Ines Papaya •
Jennifer Ramos • Paisal Tanjili

LAKAS ATENISTA 2001–2002: REVISION COMMITTEE: Melissa Suarez • Jessamyn Agustin • Judee Uy •
Janice Joanne Torres • Genie Salvania • Pches Fernandez • Riezl Locsin • Kenneth Lim • Charles Concon •
Roy Acelar • Francis Ampig • Karen Cacabelos • Maying Dadula • Hannah Examen • Thea Guadalope •
Myra Montecalvo • Paul Ongkingco • Michael Pito • Rod Quiachon • Maya Quitain • Rina Sacdalan • Lyle Santos •
Joshua Tan • Thaddeus Tuburan • John Vera Cruz • Mortmort

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA 104