G.R. No.

145022 September 23, 2005
ARMAND NOCUM and THE PHILIPPINE DAILY INQUIRER,
INC., Petitioners, vs. LUCIO TAN, Respondent.
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
Doctrine: Jurisdiction vs Venue; Venue can be waived in
civil cases
original complaint only contained the office address of
respondent and not the latter’s actual residence or the place
where the allegedly offending news reports were printed and
first published, the original complaint, by reason of the
deficiencies in its allegations, failed to confer jurisdiction on the
lower court.

FACTS: Lucio Tan filed a complaint against reporter Armand
Nocum, Capt. Florendo Umali, ALPAP and Inquirer with the
Regional Trial Court of Makati, seeking moral and exemplary
damages for the alleged malicious and defamatory imputations
contained in a news article. INQUIRER and NOCUM alleged
that the venue was improperly laid, among many others. It
appeared that the complaint failed to state the residence of the
complainant at the time of the alleged commission of the
offense and the place where the libelous article was printed and
first published.
RTC dismissed the complaint without prejudice on the
ground of improper venue. Aggrieved, Lucio Tan filed an
Omnibus Motion seeking reconsideration of the dismissal and
admission of the amended complaint. In par. 2.01.1 of the
amended complaint, it is alleged that "This article was printed
and first published in the City of Makati", and in par. 2.04.1,
that "This caricature was printed and first published in the City
of Makati"
RTC admitted the amended complaint and deemed set
aside the previous order of dismissal stating that the mistake or
deficiency in the original complaint appears now to have been
cured in the Amended Complaint. Also, there is no substantial
amendment, but only formal, in the Amended Complaint which
would affect the defendants’ defenses and their Answers.
ISSUE: WON THE LOWER COURT ACQUIRED
JURISDICTION OVER THE CIVIL CASE UPON THE FILING
OF THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
HELD: YES. It is settled that jurisdiction is conferred by law
based on the facts alleged in the complaint since the latter
comprises a concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting
the plaintiff's causes of action. Here, the RTC acquired
jurisdiction over the case when the case was filed before it.
From the allegations thereof, respondent’s cause of action is for
damages arising from libel, the jurisdiction of which is vested
with the RTC. Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code provides
that it is the RTC that is specifically designated to try a libel
case.
Petitioners are confusing jurisdiction with venue. The
Hon. Florenz D. Regalado, differentiated jurisdiction and venue
as follows: (a) Jurisdiction is the authority to hear and
determine a case; venue is the place where the case is to
be heard or tried; (b) Jurisdiction is a matter of substantive
law; venue, of procedural law; (c) Jurisdiction establishes a
relation between the court and the subject matter; venue, a
relation between plaintiff and defendant, or petitioner and
respondent; and, (d) Jurisdiction is fixed by law and cannot
be conferred by the parties; venue may be conferred by the
act or agreement of the parties.

Dissatisfied, petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Two petitions for certiorari were filed, one filed by petitioners
and the other by defendants .The two petitions were
consolidated. CA affirmed the decision of the RTC. Hence, this
PETREV filed by the petitioners. Petitioners argue that since the
Here, the additional allegations in the Amended
Complaint that the article and the caricature were printed and
first published in the City of Makati referred only to the question
of venue and not jurisdiction. These additional allegations
would neither confer jurisdiction on the RTC nor would
respondent’s failure to include the same in the original complaint
divest the lower court of its jurisdiction over the case.
Respondent’s failure to allege these allegations gave the lower
court the power, upon motion by a party, to dismiss the
complaint on the ground that venue was not properly laid. The
term "jurisdiction" in Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code as
referring to the place where actions for libel shall be filed or
"venue." The amendment was merely to establish the proper
venue for the action. It is a well-established rule that venue has
nothing to do with jurisdiction, except in criminal actions.
Assuming that venue were properly laid in the court where the
action was instituted, that would be procedural, not a
jurisdictional impediment.
The dismissal of the complaint by the lower court was
proper considering that the complaint, indeed, on its face, failed
to allege neither the residence of the complainant nor the place
where the libelous article was printed and first published.
Nevertheless, before the finality of the dismissal, the same may
still be amended. In so doing, the court acted properly and
without any grave abuse of discretion.
ISSUE: WON VENUE MAY BE WAIVED IN CIVIL CASES
HELD: YES. It is elementary that objections to venue in CIVIL
ACTIONS arising from libel may be waived since they do not
involve a question of jurisdiction. The laying of venue is
procedural rather than substantive, relating as it does to
jurisdiction of the court over the person rather than the subject
matter. Venue relates to trial and not to jurisdiction. It is a
procedural, not a jurisdictional, matter. It relates to the place of
trial or geographical location in which an action or proceeding
should be brought and not to the jurisdiction of the court. It is
meant to provide convenience to the parties, rather than restrict
their access to the courts as it relates to the place of trial. In
contrast, in criminal actions, it is fundamental that venue is
jurisdictional it being an essential element of jurisdiction.
Petitioners’ argument that the lower court has no
jurisdiction over the case because respondent failed to allege
the place where the libelous articles were printed and first
published would have been tenable if the case filed were a
criminal case. The failure of the original complaint to contain
such information would be fatal because this fact involves the
issue of venue which goes into the territorial jurisdiction of the
court. This is not to be because the case before us is a civil
action where venue is not jurisdictional.
CA’s DECISION AFFIRMED.
RULE 4 – VENUE
G.R. No. 133240. November 15, 2000]
RUDOLF LIETZ HOLDINGS, INC., petitioner, vs.
THE REGISTRY OF DEEDS OF PARAÑAQUE
CITY, respondent.
NATURE:
A petition for review on the decision rendered by RTC of
Parañaque City, Metro Manila involving questions of law.
FACTS:
Petitioner Corporation amended its Articles of Incorporation to
change its name from Rudolf Lietz, Incorporated to Rudolf Lietz
Holdings, Inc. and such was approved by SEC. As a
consequence of its change of name, petitioner sought the
amendment of the transfer certificates of title over real
properties owned by them, all of which were under the old
name. For this purpose, petitioner instituted a petition for
amendment of titles with the RTC Parañaque City.
The petition impleaded as respondent the Registry of Deeds of
Pasay City, apparently because the titles sought to be
amended, all state that they were issued by the Registry of
Deeds of Pasay City. Petitioner likewise inadvertently alleged in
the body of the petition that the lands covered by the subject
titles are located in Pasay City. Subsequently, petitioner learned
that the subject titles are in the custody of the Register of Deeds
of Parañaque City. Hence, petitioner filed an Ex-Parte Motion to
Admit Amended Petition impleading instead as respondent the
Registry of Deeds of Parañaque City, and alleged that its lands
are located in Parañaque City.
In the meantime, however, the court a quo had dismissed the
petition motu proprio on the ground of improper venue, it
appearing therein that the respondent is the Registry of Deeds
of Pasay City and the properties are located in Pasay City.
Petitioner filed with the lower court a Motion for Reconsideration
but was denied. On the other hand, in view of the dismissal of
the petition, the lower court also denied the Ex-Parte Motion to
Admit Amended Petition.
The Solicitor General filed his Comment contending that the trial
court did not acquire jurisdiction over the res because it
appeared from the original petition that the lands are situated in
Pasay City; hence, outside the jurisdiction of the Parañaque
court. Since it had no jurisdiction over the case, it could not
have acted on the motion to admit amended petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not trial court motu proprio dismiss a complaint on
the ground of improper venue.
HELD:
Venue of real actions
This question has already been answered in Dacoycoy v.
Intermediate Appellate Court, where this Court held that it may
not. The motu proprio dismissal of petitioner’s complaint by
respondent trial court on the ground of improper venue is plain
error, obviously attributable to its inability to distinguish between
jurisdiction and venue.
Questions or issues relating to venue of actions are basically
governed by Rule 4 of the Revised Rules of Court. Jurisdiction
over the subject matter or nature of an action is conferred only
by law.[16] It may not be conferred by consent or waiver upon a
court which otherwise would have no jurisdiction over the
subject matter of an action. On the other hand, the venue of an
action as fixed by statute may be changed by the consent of the
parties, and an objection on improper venue may be waived by
the failure of the defendant to raise it at the proper time. In such
an event, the court may still render a valid judgment. Rules as
to jurisdiction can never be left to the consent or agreement of
the parties. Venue is procedural, not jurisdictional, and hence
may be waived. It is meant to provide convenience to the
parties, rather than restrict their access to the courts as it relates
to the place of trial.
Dismissing the complaint on the ground of improper venue is
certainly not the appropriate course of action at this stage of the
proceedings. Where the defendant fails to challenge timely the
venue in a motion to dismiss as provided by Section 4 of Rule 4
of the Rules of Court, and allows the trial to be held and a
decision to be rendered, he cannot on appeal or in a special
action be permitted to belatedly challenge the wrong venue,
which is deemed waived. Indeed, it was grossly erroneous for
the trial court to have taken a procedural short-cut by
dismissing motu proprio the complaint on the ground of
improper venue without first allowing the procedure outlined in
the rules of court to take its proper course.
Amendments as a matter of right
A party may amend his pleading once as a matter of right at any
time before a responsive pleading is served or, in the case of a
reply, at any time within ten (10) days after it is served.
Amendments to pleadings are liberally allowed in furtherance of
justice, in order that every case may so far as possible be
determined on its real facts, and in order to speed the trial of
cases or prevent the circuitry of action and unnecessary
expense. The trial court, therefore, should have allowed the
amendment proposed by petitioner for in so doing, it would have
allowed the actual merits of the case to be speedily determined,
without regard to technicalities, and in the most expeditious and
inexpensive manner.
The courts should be liberal in allowing amendments to
pleadings to avoid multiplicity of suits and in order that the real
controversies between the parties are presented, their rights
determined and the case decided on the merits without
unnecessary delay. This liberality is greatest in the early stages
of a lawsuit, especially in this case where the amendment to the
complaint was made before the trial of the case thereby giving
petitioner all the time allowed by law to answer and to prepare
for trial.