TOPIC: MOTION TO DISMISS – IMPROPER
VENUE
PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT BANK v.
SPOUSES RAMOS
G.R. No. 228617 | September 20, 2017 | Reyes,
Jr., J.
DOCTRINE: Restrictive stipulations on venue
shall restrict the venue of any action or suit that
may arise from the contract to a particular place,
to the exclusion of all other jurisdictions.
FACTS:
 The Spouses Victoriano and Melanie
Ramos (Spouses Ramos) applied for
several credit lines with Planters
Development Bank (PDB) for the
construction of a warehouse in Nueva
Ecija.
 The application was approved and was
secured by a real estate mortgage over
properties owned by the spouses.
 The Spouses Ramos requested for an
additional loan and PDB, despite
promising to extend them a further loan
of P140 Million, only released P25
Million. This additional loan was also
secured by a real estate mortgage.
 The Spouses Ramos were not able to
pay their obligations as they fell due,
hence, PDB filed a Petition for
Extrajudicial Foreclosure of Real Estate
Mortgage before the RTC of San Jose,
Nueva Ecija.
 The Spouses Ramos filed a Complaint
for Annulment of Real Estate Mortgages
and Promissory Notes, Accounting and
Application of Payments, Injunction with
Preliminary Injunction and TRO against
PDB and its officers also before the RTC
of San Jose, Nueva Ecija.
 Instead of filing an Answer, PDB filed an
Urgent Motion to Dismiss, alleging that
the venue of the action was improperly
laid considering that the real estate
mortgages signed by the parties
contained a stipulation that any suit
arising therefrom shall be filed in Makati
City only. It further noted that the
complaint failed to state a cause of action
and must therefore be dismissed.
 The RTC denied the Urgent Motion to
Dismiss.
o It held that as a rule, the venue
of an action may be agreed upon
by the parties. However, in this
case, the Spouses Ramos’
contended that the contracts
between them and PDB take the
form of an adhesion contract.
o As such, the rule regarding the
venue of real actions well be
applied to avoid ruling on the
merits without any evidence that
would sufficiently support the
same.
o It also found that the allegations
in the complaint are sufficient to
constitute a cause of action.
 The PDB filed a motion for
reconsideration while the Spouses
Ramos filed a motion to declare PDB in
default. The RTC denied both motions.
 PDB filed a petition for certiorari with the
CA, imputing grave abuse of discretion
on the RTC for denying its motion to
dismiss, despite the fact that the venue
was improperly laid.
 The CA denied the petition.
 PDB filed a petition for review on
certiorari with the SC.
ISSUE:
Whether or not venue was improperly laid, thus
warranting the dismissal of the petition?
HELD: Yes, the contract provided that all actions
arising therefrom shall be filed exclusively in
Makati City. Since the parties intended the
stipulation on venue to be restrictive, the case
should be dismissed on the ground of improper
venue.
 As a general rule, the venue of real
actions shall be in the court which has
jurisdiction over the area where the real
property or a portion thereof is situated.
The venue of personal actions, on the
other hand, shall be in the court 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.
 The general rules on venue, however,
admit of exceptions:
(1) Where a specific rule or law
provides otherwise; or
 (2) Where the parties have
validly agreed in writing
before the filing of the action
on the exclusive venue
thereof.
 Stipulations on venue may be permissive
or restrictive. When the stipulation is
restrictive, the suit may be filed only in the
place agreed upon. If it is permissive, the
suit may be filed not only in the place
agreed upon but also in the places fixed
by law.
 In determining whether the stipulation is
permissive or restrictive, what is
essential is the ascertainment of the
intention of the parties respecting the
matter.
 The mere stipulation on the venue of an
action is not enough to preclude the
parties from bringing a case in other
venues. The parties must be able to show
that such stipulation is exclusive. In the
absence of qualifying to restrictive words,
the stipulation should be deemed as
merely an agreement on an additional
forum, not as limiting venue to the
specified place.
 In the present case, the real estate
mortgages provided that the causes of
action shall be brought “exclusively in the
proper court/s of Makati, Metro Manila,
the mortgagor waiving for this purpose
any other venue.”
 The words “exclusively” and “waiving for
this purpose any other venue” are
restrictive. Therefore, the employment of
the same language in the subject
mortgages signifies the clear intention of
the parties to restrict the venue of any
action or suit that may arise out of the
mortgage to a particular place, to the
exclusion of all other jurisdictions.
 The RTC acted with grave abuse of
discretion in denying the motion dismiss
on the ground of improper venue,
especially when the said issue had been
raised at the most opportune time, that is,
within the time for but before the filing of
an answer.
 The CA likewise erred in ruling that the
validity of the stipulation on venue
depends on whether the mortgage is
valid which means there has to be a full-
blown hearing and presentation of
evidence. This interpretation renders
meaningless the very purpose of the
stipulation on venue.
 The Spouses Ramos, in fact, never really
assailed the validity of the mortgage
contracts and promissory notes. What
they were only claiming was that the said
contracts contain stipulations which are
illegal, immoral and otherwise contrary to
customs or public policy. These matters
do not affect the validity of the mortgage
contracts, hence, the stipulation on
venue should have been upheld.
PETITION IS DENIED.
TOPIC: MOTION TO DISMISS – IMPROPER
VENUE
LEY CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION v. SEDANO
G.R. No. 222711 | August 23, 2017 | Perlas-
Bernabe, J.
DOCTRINE: The prevailing rule on objections to
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.
FACTS:
 Ley Construction (LCDC) filed a
complaint for collection of sum of money
and damages against respondent
Sedano, before the RTC of Valenzuela.
 LCDC alleged that it leased a parcel of
land located at Pasay from the Philippine
National Construction Corporation
(PNCC).
 LCDC then subleased a portion of the
said property to Sedano for a term of ten
(10) years.
 Sedano failed to pay the rent due for the
period of August to December 2011 and
despite demands, refused to settle his
obligations; hence, this complaint.
 In his Answer with Third-Party Complaint,
Sedano countered that:
o He religiously paid rent to LCDC
until PNCC demanded that the
rent be paid directly to it, in view
of LCDC’s eviction from the
subject property by virtue of a
court order;
o During the period from August to
December 2011, he remitted the
rentals to PNCC. Should he be
 found liable to LCDC, he
maintained that the RTC should
hold PNCC liable to reimburse to
him the amounts he paid as
rentals; hence, the third-party
complaint; and
o The venue was improperly laid
since the lease contract provides
that “all actions or cases filed in
connection with case shall be
filed with the RTC of Pasay,
exclusive of all others.” Hence,
the complaint should be
dismissed on the ground of
improper venue.
 Sedano also interposed a counterclaim,
seeking reimbursement from LCDC for
the overpaid amounts he made to the
latter.
 The RTC-Valenzuela granted
respondent’s motion and dismissed the
complaint on the ground of improper
venue.
o It held that the stipulation in the
lease contract regarding venue
is void insofar as it limits the filing
of cases with the RTC of Pasay,
even when the subject matter
jurisdiction over the case is with
the MeTC.
o However, with respect to the
filing of cases cognizable by the
RTCs, the stipulation validly
limits the venue to the RTC of
Pasay.
o As for the alleged waiver of the
right to question the venue, the
RTC found that there was no
waiver when Sedano raised
improper venue as a defense in
his Answer.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the RTC of Valenzuela erred in
ruling that venue was improperly laid?
HELD: No, since there was an exclusive
stipulation on venue in the lease contract, the
case can only be brought in the RTC of Pasay to
the exclusion of all other courts.
 As a general rule, the venue for personal
actions shall lie with the court which has
jurisdiction where the plaintiff or the
defendant resides, at the election of the
plaintiff. As an exception, however,
parties may, through a written
instrument, restrict the filing of said
actions in a certain exclusive venue.
 An exclusive venue stipulation is valid
and binding, provided that:
(a) The stipulation on the
chosen venue is exclusive in
nature or intent;
(b) It is expressed in writing by
the parties thereto; and
(c) It is entered into before the
filing of the suit.
 The Court found that all the above-
mentioned elements are present and that
the questioned stipulation in the lease
contract is a valid stipulation that limits
the venue of the cases to the courts of
Pasay City.
 The fact that the stipulation generalized
that all actions or cases of the
aforementioned kind shall be filed with
the RTC of Pasay, 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.
 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.
 Since LCDC’s action was one for
collection of sum of money in an amount
that falls within the exclusive jurisdiction
of the RTC, then it is the RTC of Pasay
which has jurisdiction and the complaint
is dismissible on the ground of improper
venue, without prejudice, however, to its
refiling in the proper court.
 Furthermore, Sedano timely raised the
ground of improper venue since it was
one of the affirmative defenses raised in
his Answer with Third-Party Complaint.
As such, it cannot be said that he had
waived the same.
PETITION IS DENIED.
TOPIC: MOTION TO DISMISS – IMPROPER
VENUE
RADIO FINANCE COMPANY v. SPOUSES
NOLASCO
G.R. No. 227146 | November 14, 2016 | Reyes,
J.
DOCTRINE: The RTC may not motu proprio
dismiss the case on the ground of improper
venue. It is a matter personal to the parties and
without their objection at the earliest opportunity,
as in a motion to dismiss or in the answer, it is
deemed waived.
FACTS:
 Romeo and Reynaldo Nolasco
(Nolascos) are debtors of Radiowealth
Finance Company, Inc. (Radiowealth), a
domestic financing corporation. The
Nolascos maintain a residence in
Mandaluyong City and Radiowealth has
its principal place of business in the same
city.
 The Nolascos secured a loan from
Radiowealth, payable in installments, as
evidenced by a promissory note and a
chattel mortgage over a Fuso Super
Great Dropside Truck.
 The Nolascos defaulted in the payment
of the installments which caused the
entire amount to become due and
demandable.
 Radiowealth repeatedly demanded from
the Nolascos the payment of the balance
of the loan, but the latter would not take
heed and even refused to surrender
possession of the motor vehicle.
 Radiowealth filed a complaint for sum of
money and damages with application for
writ of replevin with the RTC of San
Mateo, Rizal, praying that the Nolascos
be ordered to pay their balance, or, in the
alternative, surrender the possession of
the motor vehicle.
 The RTC issued an Order directing the
issuance of the writ of replevin.
Subsequently, however, it issued an
Amended Order dismissing motu proprio
the case for lack of jurisdiction. It ruled
that since neither of the parties reside
within the jurisdiction of the trial court, the
case must be dismissed.
 The motion for reconsideration of
Radiowealth was denied.
 Radiowealth filed a petition for review on
certiorari before the SC, challenging the
order of the RTC on pure questions of
law.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the RTC correctly dismissed the
case?
HELD: No, jurisdiction in this case is vested with
the RTC, hence, it incorrectly dismissed the case
on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The case was
likewise brought in the proper venue pursuant to
the stipulation in the promissory note of the
parties.
 The RTC confused the terms
“jurisdiction” and “venue”, which are
completely different concepts. There is
no question that the RTC has jurisdiction
over the complaint filed by Radiowealth
considering the nature of the case and
the amount involved.
 “Jurisdiction” is the court’s authority to
hear and determine a case. The court’s
jurisdiction over the nature and subject
matter of an action is conferred by law.
o B.P. 129, as amended, provides
that the RTC shall exercise
exclusive original jurisdiction
over all cases in which the
demand or the value of the
property in controversy exceeds
P300,000, or in such other cases
in Metro Manila, where the
demand exceeds P400,000.
o Since the amount involved is
P1.6 Million, the same is within
the jurisdiction of the RTC. It is,
therefore, error for the RTC to
claim lack of jurisdiction over the
case.
 “Venue” pertains to the place where the
case may be filed. Unlike jurisdiction,
venue may be waived and subjected to
the agreement of the parties provided
that it does not cause them
inconvenience.
 Under the Rules of Court, the venue of
personal actions is allowed to be
subjected to the stipulation of the parties
for as long as it does not defeat the
purpose of the Rules which primarily
aims for the convenience of the parties to
the dispute.
 In this case, in the promissory note
executed and signed by the parties, there
is a provision which states that “any
action to enforce payment of any sums
due under this Note shall exclusively be
brought in the proper court within the
NCR or in any place where Radiowealth
has a branch/office, at its sole option.”
 Thus, the filing of the case in San Mateo,
Rizal, where Radiowealth maintains a
 branch is proper and should have been
respected by the RTC especially when
there has been no objection by the
Nolascos.
 Moreover, the RTC may not motu proprio
dismiss the case on the ground of
improper venue. It is a matter personal to
the parties and without their objection at
the earliest opportunity, as in a motion to
dismiss or in the answer, it is deemed
waived.
PETITION IS GRANTED.
TOPIC: MOTION TO DISMISS – IMPROPER
VENUE
OPPEN v. COMPAS
G.R. No. 203969 | October 21, 2015 | Mendoza,
J.
DOCTRINE: Failure to challenge timely the
venue in a motion to dismiss is deemed a waiver
of such objection.
FACTS:
 The subject matter of the case involves
two (2) parcels of land covered by TCT
Nos. S-100612 and S-100613, which
were registered in the name of Philippine
Merchant Marine School, Inc. (PMMSI).
 In 1984, the said properties were levied
upon in favor of Manufacturers Building,
Inc. (MBI) pursuant to the decision and
writ of execution issued by the MeTC-
Branch 7.
 In 1986, the notice of levy in favor of MBI
was annotated at the back of the TCT of
the properties.
 Meanwhile, in 1987, Ernesto Oppen, Inc.
(EOI), pursuant to a writ of execution
issued by the MeTC-Branch 15,
annotated its lien on TCT No. S-100612.
A certificate of sale was subsequently
issued in its favor and was likewise
annotated on the TCT.
 The property was later sold in a public
auction with EOI as the highest bidder
and the final deed of sale in its favor was
issued after the lapse of the redemption
period.
 In 2002, an alias writ of execution was
issued by the MeTC-Branch 7 in
connection with the case between
PMMSI and MBI. The properties subject
of that case were sold in a public auction
in which Compas was the winning bidder
who had the sale annotated on both titles.
 The final deed of sale was then issued to
Compas after PMMSI failed to redeem
the properties.
 In 2003, the TCT under PMMI’s name
was cancelled and a new one was issued
under EOI’s name.
 In 2005, Compas filed a petition for the
cancellation of TCT Nos. S-100612 and
S-100613 and for the issuance of new
titles in his name before the RTC-Las
Piñas. However, upon learning that TCT
No. S-100612 has been cancelled and a
new title had been issued under EOI’s
name, Compas filed a Motion to Admit
Amended Petition.
 EOI filed two (2) motions to dismiss the
Amended Petition of Compas.
o The first motion to dismiss was
filed on the ground of failure to
state a cause of action. This was
denied by the RTC-Las Piñas on
the ground that Compas could
rightfully enforce its lien on the
property under EOI’s name.
o The second motion to dismiss
was filed on the ground that
under Sec. 108 of P.D. 1529 or
the Property Registration Decree
(PRD), the court with jurisdiction
was the court where the original
registration was filed and
docketed.
 The RTC denied the second motion to
dismiss on the ground that Sec. 108 of
the PRD was inapplicable and that it was
vested with jurisdiction under Sec. 2
thereof.
 The CA, on a petition for certiorari,
sustained the jurisdiction of the RTC-Las
Piñas over the amended petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction to hear
the amended petition of EOI?
HELD: Yes, Sec. 2 of the PRD and not Sec. 108
is applicable. Sec. 2 provides that the RTC shall
have exclusive jurisdiction over registration
proceedings, including petitions filed after the
original registration of title.
 Sec. 108 of the PRD can only apply if
there is unanimity among the parties, or
 that there is no adverse claim or serious
objection on the part of any party in
interest.
 EOI cannot insist that the action should
have been filed with the RTC where the
original registration was filed and issued
considering that the case involved
controversial issues. The parties,
therefore, lacked unanimity as EOI even
filed a motion to dismiss for failure to
state a cause of action, claiming that its
Torrens Title was indefeasible and could
not be collaterally attacked.
 A closer scrutiny of Sec. 2 and Sec. 108
of the PRD will show that the former
pertains to the grant of jurisdiction to
RTCs while the latter refers to the venue
where the action to be instituted, to wit:
“Section 2. Nature of registration
proceedings; jurisdiction of courts. –
Judicial proceedings for the registration
of lands throughout the Philippines shall
be in rem and shall be based on the
generally accepted principles underlying
the Torrens system.
Courts of First Instance shall have
exclusive jurisdiction over all
applications for original registration of
title to lands, including improvements
and interests therein, and over all
petitions 􏰄􏰄led after original registration
of title, with power to hear and determine
all questions arising upon such
applications or petitions. The court
through its clerk of court shall furnish the
Land Registration Commission with two
certified copies of all pleadings, exhibits,
orders, and decisions 􏰄led or issued in
applications or petitions for land
registration, with the exception of
stenographic notes, within five days
from the 􏰄ling or issuance thereof.”
“Sec. 108. Amendment and alterations
of certificates. – No erasure, alteration,
or amendment shall be made upon the
registration book after the entry of a
certificate of title or of a memorandum
thereon and the attestation of the same
by the Register of Deeds, except by
order of the proper Court of First
Instance.
All petitions or motions led under this
Section as well as any other provision of
this Decree after original registration
shall be filed and entitled in the original
case in which the decree or registration
was entered.”
 EOI’s second motion to dismiss was
supposed to be on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction. It, however, alleges that the
petition should not have been filed with
the RTC-Las Piñas, but with the RTC
were the original title was filed and
issued. Based on the allegations
thereof, the second motion was invoking
the ground of improper venue.
 As such, the second motion to dismiss
was rightfully denied as EOI waived the
ground of improper venue after it had
filed its first motion to dismiss pursuant
to the Omnibus Motion Rule.
o The ROC likewise provides that
a motion attacking a pleading,
order, judgment or proceedings
shall include all objections then
available, and all objections not
so included shall be deemed
waived.
 EOI only insisted that the proper venue
was the RTC where the original case
was entered after its first motion to
dismiss alleging the failure to state a
cause of action was filed and denied.
 The ground of improper venue was
deemed waived and could no longer be
questioned by EOI because the issue on
venue was not raised in its prior motion
to dismiss.
PETITION IS DENIED.
TOPIC: MOTION TO DISMISS – IMPROPER
VENUE
LATORRE v. LATORRE
G.R. No. 183926 | March 29, 2010 | Nachura, J.
DOCTRINE: Actions affecting title to or
possession of real property or an interest therein
(real actions) shall be commenced and tried in the
proper court that has territorial jurisdiction over
the area where the real property is situated.
FACTS:
 Petitioner Generosa Latorre (Generosa)
filed before the RTC of Muntinlupa a
 complaint for collection and declaration
of nullity of deed of absolute sale with
application for injunction against her own
son, respondent Luis Latorre (Luis) and
one Ifzal Ali (Ifzal).
 Generosa averred that:
o Luis and Ifzal entered into a
contract of lease over a Makati
property. Under the said
contract, Luis, as lessor,
erroneously declared that he
was the absolute and registered
owner of the subject property
when in fact, she and Luis were
co-owners of the property in
equal shares.
o She and Luis executed their
respective deeds of donation
conveying the subject property in
favor of The Porfirio D. Latorre
Memorial & Fr. Luis Esteban
Latorre Foundation, Inc. (the
Foundation). Thus, the TCT of
the property was issued in the
name of the Foundation.
o Subsequently, Generosa and
Luis executed separate Deeds of
Revocation of Donation and
Reconveyance of the subject
property, consented to by the
Foundation.
o The deeds of revocation were
not registered hence, the subject
property remained in the name of
the Foundation.
o To protect her rights as co-
owner, she demanded from Ifzal
the payment of her share of the
rentals, which the latter refused
to heed.
o Luis later caused the annotation
of an adverse claim on the TCT,
claiming full ownership over the
same by virtue of a deed of
absolute sale.
o This deed was a falsified
document and that her signature
was forged by Luis. Furthermore,
that she never received any
amount as consideration for her
share of the subject property.
 Luis filed a motion to dismiss on the
ground that the venue of the case was
improperly laid. He stressed that while
the complaint was denominated as one
for collection and declaration of nullity of
absolute sale, the case was in fact a real
action affecting title to and interest over
the property.
 Luis further argued that since all of
Generosa’s claims were anchored on her
claim of ownership of one-half (1/2)
portion of the subject property and since
the same was located in Makati, the case
should have been filed before the RTC of
Makati.
 Ifzal also filed a motion to dismiss on the
ground of want of jurisdiction, asserting
that he was immune from suit because he
was an officer of the Asian Development
Bank, an international organization.
 The RTC denied Luis’s motion to
dismiss, ruling that the nature of an action
whether real or personal was determined
by the allegations in the complaint,
irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff
was entitled to recover upon the claims
asserted – a matter resolved only after,
and as a result of, a trial.
 Luis then filed an answer ad cautelam
insisting, among others, that the case
was a real action and that the venue was
improperly laid.
 The RTC dismissed Generosa’s claim
against Ifzal because it found that the
dispute was clearly between Generosa
and Luis.
 The RTC, after trial, ruled in favor of Luis.
It held that the case should have been
filed in the RTC of Makati as it involves
recovery of possession of a real property
in Makati.
 Generosa filed a petition for review on
certiorari before the SC.
ISSUE: Whether or not the case was properly
dismissed?
HELD: Yes, since the case involved is an action
affecting title to or possession of real property or
an interest therein (real action), it must be
commenced and tried in the court that has
territorial jurisdiction over the area where the real
property is situated. In this case, in the RTC of
Makati.
 The action in the RTC, other than for
collection, was for the declaration of
nullity of the deed of absolute sale
involving the subject property which is
located in Makati. The venue of such
 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.