Lecture CivPro_AMEV 1 Rule 4

RULE 4 VENUE OF ACTIONS what is VENUE? place where an action muct be instituted and tried venue in REAL Actions- commenced and tried in the proper court which has jurisdiction over the area wherein the real property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated when is an action a real action? Actions affecting title to or possession of real property, or interest therein. what is A personal action? One that has privity to personal prop, enforcement of a contract and recovery of damages 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. Fortune Motors v CA Fortune motors had a loan w/ MBTC secured by REM. was not able to pay and was foreclosed sold at public auction w/ 1 yr redemption pd. 3 days before the expiry of redemption pd Fortune filed an action for the annulment of sale in RTC Manila. MBTC motion to dismiss-venue improperly laid in Manila being a real action it shld have been filed in Makati where the property is located. Is an action for annulment of REM a personal or real action? it does not involve any title or possession the right of ME is only inchoate and will only arise if there is a foreclosure share. Held: it was a real action bec it is a recovery of title thus RTC Makati has jurisdiction. ACTION TO ANNUL SALE OF REAL PROPERTY; RECOVERY THEREOF THE PRIMARY OBJECTIVE. While it is true that petitioner does not directly seek the recovery of title or possession of the property in question, his action for annulment of sale and his claim for damages are closely intertwined with the issue of ownership of the building which, under the law, is considered immovable property, the recovery of which is petitioner's primary objective. The prevalent doctrine is that an action for the annulment or rescission of a sale of real property does not operate to efface the fundamental and prime objective and nature of the case, which is to recover said real property. It is a real action. Respondent Court, therefore, did not err in dismissing the case on the ground of improper venue (Sec. 2, Rule 4) which was timely raised Torres vs Tuazon12 S 74- p. 616 paras action for specific performance and asked deed of sale to be issued to him and TCT be issued to him. Plaintiff filed an action in Manila praying that JM Tuazon and Co be able to execute a deed of Sale. Agreement that ARanetas will pay Dudors. Action of plaintiff is to require Tuazons and ARaneta to execute a deed of Sale which he bought fr X w/c he bought fr the action to compel execution of deed of sale shld be filed in QC. Motion to dismiss. Plaintiff said that they are simply asking to comply with the agreement. SC. the fact that plaintiff that deed of sale be executed showed the it aims to recover real prop thus it revolves in issue of ownership DR. ANTONIO A. LIZARES, INC., vs. HON. HERMOGENES CALUAG, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Quezon City, and FLAVIANO CACNIO Cacnio bought land in installment fr Lizares, and w/o reason Lizares refused to accept his pyt and threatens Cacnio to repossess the land. Cacnio filed a cs in CFI Rizal Quezon praying that defendant be ordered to accept pyt- saying that it was a personal action. Property is in Bacolod. Held: real action- his action is intertwined to the title in the property and possession thereof. it is only the st immediate and 1 step to his title to the property JOSE M. HERNANDEZ, petitioner, vs. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES and COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF BATANGAS, LIPA CITY BRANCH action to annul the cancellation of award. Hernandez was awarded a house n lot, to be paid in mo installment. He issued a check in pyt thereof only to be informed that the award was already cancelled bec he is no longer entitled bec he already retired. Filed an action to annul the cancellation of award given to him, he filed it in CFI Batangas where he resides. Motion to dismiss due to improper venue was filed by DBP saying that it is a real action thus shld be in QC were prop is located. Held: Personal Action. Not an issue of ownership or title to real prop but merely seeks defendant to recognize the award previously given Cant we say in this cs and that of Lizares, that the action st is only a 1 step? In Lizares, it was a Contract to SELL, it is a contract to sell in the future. Is there an instance that a promise to sell can no longer be withdrawn? If a promise is not

Lecture CivPro_AMEV 2 Rule 4

supported by a separate and distinct consideration, it can be withdrawn at any time provided that the promisee has not yet accepted if it was accepted, it is a perfect contract. Installment is a consideration supporting the promise. It is just a 1 step to your ownership, although contract to sell palang pero pag nacomplete mo na ang bayad, sayo na. Hernandez v DBP- it is a mere award. do not confuse Real action and an action w/c is incapable of pecuniary estimation. For purposes of Venue, you still apply Rules on Real Action but for purposes of jurisdiction can be a real thing for purposes of Jurisdiction. Paderanga v Buissan went to Dipolog to filed an action to fix pd of lease. Property is in Ozamiz City. Issue here is not a real prop but fixing the pd of lease. Real Action: you are not asking to fix but the whole property. If court will fix the pd it will involve the effect of repossession of the whole property. It is not the prayer but the allegations of the complaint. 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. What is meant by the word reside? Raymond v CA Bitera filed complaint for damages against Raymond in RTC Iloilo, bec Biteras address based on the complaint is in Iloilo. Motion to dismiss improper venue file by Raymond bec their Residence is in UPSUMCO cmpd in Bais City being an OIC in the business firm, they are both residents here and cause of damages arose fr a controversy in UPSUMPCO- affidavit appended of Bitera also states this fact. Biteras residence cert issued in Negros Occidental. Held: Residence actual residence, physical and personal residence. Shld be filed in Bais the very subj of controversy happened in Bais City. The term residence is actual, physical presence where you return fr work VENUE PROVISION; WORDS "RESIDE OR "RESIDENCE" AS USED THEREIN, CONSTRUED. it was held in Garcia Fule v. Court of Appeals, 74 SCRA 189, 199 (citing cases) that the doctrinal rule is that the term "resides" connotes Ex Vi Termini "actual residence' as distinguished from st

'legal residence or domicile." Even where the statute uses the word "domicile," still it construed as meaning residence and not "domicile" in the technical sense. Some cases make a distinction between the terms "residence and "domicile," but as generally used in statutes fixing venue, the terms are synonymous and convey the same meaning as the term "inhabitant ". In other words, "resides" should be viewed or understood in its popular sense, meaning, the personal, actual or physical habitation of a person, actual residence or place of abode. Esuerte v CA Tan a Jr resident of a Hospital was complained by Esuerte a head nurse for shouting and humiliating her w/o justifiable reason. Tan was requested by the hospital to explain her side but instead filed a case in Cebu- RTC for damages. Motion to dismiss for improper venue and exhaustion of admin remedies. Held: Tan is a legal resident of Cebu. Her parents live there but at the time of the incident she is residing in Bacolod City bec of work as well as the petitioners. the issue arose also in Bacolod. case shld have been filed in Bacolod. the controversy arose in Bacolod City, where he actual stays, physical residence, actual and place of abode. In Koh v. CA, L-40428, December 17, 1975, 70 SCRA 298; 305, We ruled: "Applying the foregoing observation to the present case, We are fully convinced that private respondent Coloma's protestations of domicile in San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte, based on his manifested intention to return there after the retirement of his wife from government service to justify his bringing of an action for damages against petitioner in the C.F.I. of Ilocos Norte, is entirely of no moment since what is of paramount importance is where he actually resided or where he may be found at the time he brought the action, to comply substantially with the requirements of Sec. 2(b) of Rule 4, Rules of Court, on venue of personal actions . . ." As perspicaciously observed by Justice Moreland, the purpose of procedure is not to restrict the court's jurisdiction over the subject matter but to give it effective facility "in righteous action," "to facilitate and promote the administration of justice" or to insure "just judgments" by means of a fair hearing. If the objective is not achieved, then "the administration of justice becomes incomplete and unsatisfactory and lays itself open to criticism." (Manila Railroad Co. v. Attorney General, 20 Phil. 523, 530). Can a non-resident be sued? Yes. provided that it involves the personal status of the plaintiff, or any property of the defendant located in th

Lecture CivPro_AMEV 3 Rule 4

Sec. 3. Venue of actions against non-residents. 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. (redendo singula singunis) a non-resident if not found in the Phils, can not be sued except when it affects status of plaintiff or defendant located in the Phils. pag status and property of defendant in becomes in rem. read sec 3 in rel to sec 2- non-residentdi nagbayad ng bills sa Clark, asa Boracay na. You can sue bec you can serve summons. either in Pamp and Kalibo, Aklan. a non-resident not found in the Phils can not be sued in our courts bec cant acquire jurisdiction over the person but if it an action in rem, personal status of the plaintiffStatus of Plaintiff- where the plaintiff resides prop of defendant- where the property is located. collection for a sum of money and able to attach property of defendant- place where the property of defendant. Sec. 4. When Rule not applicable. This Rule shall not apply: (a) In those cases where a specific rule or law provides otherwise; or eg. Libel- where printed, where he resides, public officerst where he is holding office or where 1 printed. (b) Where the parties have validly agreed in writing before the filing of the action on the exclusive venue thereof. POLYTRADE CORPORATION, plaintiff-appellee, vs. VICTORIANO BLANCO, defendant-appellant. defendant is a resident of Bulacan, and a case was filed against him here CFI Bulacan by Polytrade Corp for recovery of purchase price for the purchase of Rawhide. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for improper venue bec they stipulated that the parties may be sued or sue in Manila. Held: merely permissive. merely consented to be sued in Manila but does not preclude the filing of cs in Bulacandefendants residence VIRGILIO CAPATI, plaintiff-appellant, vs. DR. JESUS P. OCAMPO CAPATI is a resident of Pampange entered into a contract w/ Ocampo for construction of vault walls, etc to be finished in on or before June 5 but was only finished June 20. Capati filed a cs for damages for the delay in CFI Pampanga. Motion to dismiss improper venue bec they have a stipulation that all actions MAY be instituted in CFI Naga City. Held: stipulation is merely permissive- use of the word May UNIMASTERS CONGLOMERATION, INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and KUBOTA AGRI-MACHINERY PHILIPPINES, INC., respondents. Kubota Agri-Machinery Philippines, Inc. (hereafter, simply KUBOTA) and Unimasters Conglomeration, Inc. (hereafter, simply UNIMASTERS) entered into a "Dealership Agreement for Sales and Services" of the former's products in Samar and Leyte Provinces. 1 But the contract between them provides that " . . . All suits arising out of this Agreement shall be filed with/in the proper Courts of Quezon City," without mention of Tacloban City where the cs was filed for breach of contract. The question is whether this stipulation had the effect of effectively eliminating the latter as an optional venue and limiting litigation between UNIMASTERS and KUBOTA only and exclusively to Quezon City. In light of all the cases above surveyed, and the general postulates distilled therefrom, the question should receive a negative answer. Absent additional words and expressions definitely and unmistakably denoting the parties' desire and intention that actions between them should be ventilated only at the place selected by them, Quezon City or other contractual provisions clearly evincing the same desire and intention the stipulation should be construed, not as confining suits between the parties only to that one place, Quezon City, but as allowing suits either in Quezon City or Tacloban City, at the option of the plaintiff (UNIMASTERS in this case do not merely use the word shall but must have additional wordsexclusively, solely, etc. Stipulations on venue in a contract of adhesion, is that valid? gen. not unless it is contrary to public policy. HOECHST PHILIPPINES, INC., petitioner, vs. FRANCISCO TORRES they were forced to hide in the cargo section and they were exposed to heat and dust- and the tickets they bought were not honored. back of the ticket- can file the cs only in Cebu- Case was filed in CFI Misamis Oriental.

Lecture CivPro_AMEV 4 Rule 4

Held: Contract of Adhesion- mostly but tickets during ruch hrs and no time to read the provisions. Too inconvenient to file the cs only in Cebu- while provisions on venue is mainly for convenience of the parties. contrary to public policy. Two passengers of an inter-island vessel sued petitioner company in the Court o First Instance of Misamis Oriental for breach of contract of carriage. Petitioner moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground of improper venue. The motion was premised on the condition printed att he back of the tickets that actions arising from "the provisions of this ticket shall be filed in the competent courts in the City of Cebu. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss as well as the motion for reconsideration. The Supreme Court sustained the trial court and declared the condition void and unenforceable as contrary to public policy which is to make the courts accessible to all who may have need of their services SWEET LINE, INC., petitioner, vs. HON. BERNARDO TEVES kawawa naman ang tao, they have monopoly. no choice but to they were forced to hide in the cargo section and they were exposed to heat and dust- and the tickets they bought were not honored. back of the ticket- can file the cs only in Cebu- Case was filed in CFI Misamis Oriental. Held: Contract of Adhesion- mostly but tickets during ruch hrs and no time to read the provisions. Too inconvenient to file the cs only in Cebu- while provisions on venue is mainly for convenience of the parties. contrary to public policy. Two passengers of an inter-island vessel sued petitioner company in the Court o First Instance of Misamis Oriental for breach of contract of carriage. Petitioner moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground of improper venue. The motion was premised on the condition printed att he back of the tickets that actions arising from "the provisions of this ticket shall be filed in the competent courts in the City of Cebu. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss as well as the motion for reconsideration. The Supreme Court sustained the trial court and declared the condition void and unenforceable as contrary to public policy which is to make the courts accessible to all who may have need of their services. JESUS DACOYCOY, petitioner, vs. HON. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, HON. ANTONIO V. BENEDICTO, RTC Antipolo Rizal. respondent judge in this cs motu proprio (at its own urging) dismissed the case for improper venue bec the cs was a real action pertainining to annulment of 2 deeds of sale involving real property in Pangasinan. on the ground that it is a real action thus venue shld be where property is located. Held: Judge committed error- he has to distinguish jurisdiction vs venue. 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 . . NOT IMPROPERLY LAID UNLESS AND UNTIL DEFENDANT OBJECTS TO IT IN A MOTION TO DISMISS; REASON. 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, the venue, though technically wrong, may be acceptable to the parties for whose convenience the rules on venue had been devised. The trial court cannot pre-empt the defendant's prerogative to object to the improper laying of the venue by motu proprio dismissing the case. venue is for the convenience of the parties, if no one objects then it is convenient for them Time Magazine p. 119- Regalado- npon-resident- venue residence of the defendant