PROJECT JURISPRUDENCE

QUESTION: In July 2001, XAXA took out a life insurance policy of his own life at 4,000,000 pesos. He designated ZAZA, his daughter, as beneficiary with respect to 1/2 of the proceeds. He reserved his right to replace ZAZA anytime with another person. XAXA also designated YAYA as the irrevocable beneficiary of the other half. XAXA died in October 2004. Will the proceeds of the life insurance of XAXA form part of his gross estate? ANSWER:  Only the proceeds of 2,000,000 given to ZAZA shall form part of XAXA's gross estate. According to the Tax Code, proceeds of life insurance shall not form part of the gross estate of the decedent to the extent of the amount receivable by an irrevocable beneficiary. In other words, the amount receivable by a revocable beneficiary under an life insurance policy shall still form part of the gross estate of the decedent-policy owner. As to YAYA's share in the proceeds, the same cannot be included in XAXA's gross estate.

QUESTION:  In 2000, XXX purchased from YYY a picture worth 1,000,000. The fair market value at the time of sale was 2,000,000 pesos. YYY paid all the taxes due on the transaction. In 2002 or two (2) years later, XXX died. In his will, XXX gave the picture to his only daughter ZZZ. AT the time, the picture was already 3,000,000 pesos. ZZZ, in XXX's will, was also given the power to appoint his wife, WWW, as successor to the picture in the even of ZZZ's death. ZZZ died in 2008 and WWW acquired the property. Should the painting be included in the gross estate of XXX or ZZZ for purposes of estate tax? ANSWER:   It should be included in XXX's gross estate. The fair market value of the picture in 2002 or at the time of his death should be included in XXX's gross estate subject to estate tax. The value of the gross estate of the decedent shall be determined by including the value at the time of his death of all property, real or personal, tangible or intangible, wh

QUESTION: TESTATOR wrote a will on September 8, 2000. On the same day, he donated several pieces of land as gifts to his children. At that time, TESTATOR was already 85 years old, suffering from cancer of the skin which has been declared incurable and deadly. Are the gifts to his children "transfers in contemplation of death"? ANSWER: Yes, they are transfers in contemplation of death. There are three reasons. First, donations made to compulsory heirs before the TESTATOR's death are included in collation and are deemed advance legitimes. Hence, the transfer, even if styled inter vivos, is actually mortis causa. Hence, they are part of the gross estate for estate tax purposes. Second, according to the Supreme Court, there is a presumption that gifts have been made in contemplation of death if they were given within a short time from or simultaneously with the making of the TESTATOR's will. Third and finally, considering that the transfer was gratuitous and the

QUESTION: Suffering from cancer in all parts of his body which, according to doctors, was impossible to cure because he was already 88 years old, XXX decided to sell for valuable and sufficient consideration and building and the lot on which it was built to his son YYY. Six (6) months later, XXX died. During the estate settlement proceeding, it was argued by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) that the transfer to YYY was in contemplation of death and, perforce, the property thus transferred should still form part of the gross estate of XXX for purposes of estate tax. Should the same be included? ANSWER: No, the property transferred to YYY should not be included in the gross estate. For a transfer to be deemed "in contemplation of death," the transfer must be either without consideration or for insufficient consideration. Absent this requisite, the transfer is NOT considered in contemplation of death. Here, the text of the case clearly states that the property

QUESTION:  XXX, a Korean citizen, was a permanent resident of the Philippines. He died in Seoul, Korea. He left 100,000 shares in Jollibee Food Corporation, two (2) condominium units in Makati City and a house and lot in Tokyo, Japan. Should all these properties be included in the estate tax return? ANSWER: Yes, all of these properties should be included in the estate tax return. Properties of resident alien decedents are subject to estate tax wherever they are situated. This is according to the National Internal Revenue Code. XXX is a resident alien decedent. The house and lot in Tokyo, Japan shall be included despite being outside the Philippines.

Below are theories behind the levy and imposition of estate tax in the Philippines. They are almost the same theories that justify taxation in general. [1] STATE-PARTNERSHIP THEORY. This is also called the "privilege theory." The State, through the three (3) branches of government, especially through the President's economic and foreign policies and the lawmaking body's enactment of laws that invite more investors into the country, is the citizen's silent partner in his enjoyment of return of investment and growth and his accumulation of property. Thus, it has the right to collect the share due it. [2] BENEFIT THEORY. This is also called the "benefits-protection theory." It is the primary duty of the State to serve and protect the people via government programs and projects that benefit them. Correlative to this duty is the right to a share in the distribution of the estate of the decedent who and whose family benefited from the efforts of the State.

Estate taxes are an excise tax. They are ad valorem. They are also direct, national, general and progressive. [1] PROGRESSIVE. Estate tax is progressive because the rate increases as the tax base increases. [2] GENERAL. Estate tax is a general tax measure because the purpose is to raise revenue for the government to be used for general purposes. [3] NATIONAL. Estate tax is not local; it is national. It is imposed by the National Government and collected by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR). Local government units (LGU) cannot impose this tax anymore because of the principle of preemption under the Local Government Code (Sec. 133) [4] EXCISE. Estate tax is an excise not, not a tax on property. It is imposed upon the privilege of transferring property or the shifting of economic benefits and enjoyment of the same from the decedent to his heirs. This is a privilege because such transmission and acquisition from the dead to the living is a fiction of law. [5] AD VALOREM.  Esta

Estate taxes are not taxes on property. They are in the nature of excise taxes; they are taxes on the privilege of passing ownership of property upon death. They are not property taxes because their imposition does not rest upon general ownership.

A corporation is an artificial being created by operation of law, having the right of succession and the powers, attributes, and properties expressly authorized by law or incident to its existence. (Section 2, B.P. 68, or the Corporation Code)

The gross estate of a decedent shall be comprised of the following properties and interest therein at the time of his/her death, including revocable transfers and transfers for insufficient consideration, etc.: [1] Residents and citizens – all properties, real or personal, tangible or intangible, wherever situated. [2] Non-resident aliens – only properties situated in the Philippines provided, that, with respect to intangible personal property, its inclusion in the gross estate is subject to the rule of reciprocity provided for under Section 104 of the NIRC. Provided, That amounts withdrawn from the deposit accounts of a decedent subjected to the 6% final withholding tax imposed under Section 97 of the NIRC, shall be excluded from the gross estate for purposes of computing the estate tax. ( Section 4, Revenue Regulation No. 12-2018. January 25, 2018)

It is a well-settled rule that estate taxation is governed by the statute in force at the time of death of the decedent. The estate tax accrues as of the death of the decedent and the accrual of the tax is distinct from the obligation to pay the same. Upon the death of the decedent, succession takes place and the right of the State to tax the privilege to transmit the estate vests instantly upon death. Accordingly, the tax rates and procedures prescribed under these Regulations shall govern the estate of decedent who died on or after the effectivity date of the TRAIN Law. (Section 3, Revenue Regulation No. 12-2018. January 25, 2018)

The net estate of every decedent, whether resident or non-resident of the Philippines, as determined in accordance with the NIRC, shall be subject to an estate tax at the rate of six percent (6%). (Section 2, Revenue Regulation No. 12-2018. January 25, 2018)

If the decedent or testator is a resident of the Philippines at the time of his death, his gross estate shall include all his property, real or personal, tangible or intangible, wherever situated at the time of his death. (Section 85 of the National Internal Revenue Code) In the matter of proceeds from a life insurance policy issued by a foreign corporation, they are included as part of the gross estate of decedent or testator, if the designation of the beneficiary is revocable. If the designated beneficiary is either the estate of the deceased, his executor or administrator, it shall be included irrespective of the nature of the designation (revocable or irrevocable). If the designated beneficiary is other than the estate, executor or administrator and the designation is irrevocable, the proceeds shall not form part of his gross estate.

The value of the gross estate of the decedent shall be determined by including the value at the time of death  of all property, real or personal, tangible or intangible, wherever situated. If the fair market value of the real property at the time of death of the decedent is P400 million, this market value should be the one used for purposes of determining the gross estate. Whatever is the value of the property after his death (whether it goes up or down) is of no moment for estate tax purposes.

Principle of mobilia sequuntur personam refers to the principle that taxation of intangible personal property generally follows the residence or domicile of the owner thereof.

Succession or transfer of estate (upon death) is a privilege. It is law that allows a person to transmit his property upon death and/or to control to a certain extent the disposition of his property to take effect upon his death. Estate tax is an excise tax imposed upon such privilege. The transfer of the net estate of every decedent, whether resident or non-resident of the Philippines, as determined in accordance with the Tax Code, shall be subject to the estate tax. The entire value of the net estate is divided into brackets and each rate is imposed on the corresponding bracket. Note that the Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion (TRAIN) or Republic Act No. 10963 has made changes to estate tax laws in the Philippines. It is said that TRAIN has simplified estate tax and donor's tax. The TRAIN aims to simplify property purchases, transfers and donations in order to make the land market more efficient thus ensuring the usage of properties is maximized. The estate tax is

Under Section 91 of the Tax Code, donations inter vivos are subject to donor's taxes while donations mortis cause are subject to estate taxes under Section 77 of the same Code. However, even if the donation appears to be inter vivos if the transfer is contemplated to take effect upon death of the donor or is revocable during his lifetime, it may still be taxed for estate taxation purposes.

Generally speaking, extension of time to pay estate taxes is NOT allowed. Of course, this is not an absolute rule. When payment of said taxes would impose undue hardship upon the estate or any of the heirs, it may be allowed but an extension granted shall not to exceed 5 years in case of judicial settlement or shall not exceed 2 years in case of extra‐judicial settlement. However, even if the above circumstances are present, there shall be no extension if the taxpayer is guilty of negligence, fraud or intentional disregard of tax rules and regulations.

Here are some differences between donor's tax and estate tax. Donation takes place (in other words, transfers property) during the lifetime of the donor. This is why it is called disposition "inter vivos." It may take place between natural and juridical persons. On the other hand, succession or transfer of estate occurs at the moment of death (sometimes termed "after the death of the decedent or testator"). This is why it is called disposition "mortis causa." It takes place only between natural persons. In case of donor's taxes, there is, of course, a need to file a return (report). The report shall include [1] each gift made during the taxable year which is to be included in computing the net gifts. Also included in the return are [2] deductions claimed and allowable, [3] any previous net gifts made during the same taxable year, [4] the name of the donee and [5] such further information as may be required by rules and regulations made pursua

Transfer taxes are imposed upon the privilege of disposing gratuitously private properties. These are levied on the transmission of properties from a decedent to his heirs or from a donor to a donee. Therefore, under the National Internal Revenue Code, the two kinds of transfer taxes are "estate tax" and "donor's tax."

Indeed, courts cannot consider evidence which has not been formally offered because parties are required to inform the courts of the purpose of introducing their respective exhibits to assist the latter in ruling on their admissibility in case an objection thereto is made. Without a formal offer of evidence, courts are constrained to take no notice of the evidence even if it has been marked and identified. This rule, however, admits of an exception, provided that the evidence has been identified by testimony duly recorded and that it has been incorporated in the records of the case. In this case, the subject pieces of evidence were presented in support of respondents’ motion for reconsideration of the denial of their motion to dismiss. A hearing was set for the reception of their evidence, but petitioner failed to attend the same. The pieces of evidence were thus identified, marked in evidence, and incorporated in the records of the case. Clearly, the trial court correctly admitted

As a general rule, rules of evidence shall be the same in all courts and in all trials and hearings. However, by way of exception, law, the Rules, Supreme Court issuance and pieces of jurisprudence may provide a different treatments regarding evidence. For example, the 1987 Constitution provides a law on evidence regarding proof beyond reasonable doubt in case of conviction of crimes and regarding presumption of innocence. The Supreme Court has also issued special rules (e.g. Rules on DNA Evidence) and decisions (e.g. Star Two v. Ko) that lay down other guidelines on evidence.

In the light of Article 21 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, on February 19, 1993, the Supreme Court has promulgated the opinion that, where a man's promise to marry is in fact the proximate cause of the acceptance of his love by a woman and his representation to fulfill that promise thereafter becomes the proximate cause of the giving of herself unto him in a sexual congress , proof that he had, in reality, no intention of marrying her and that the promise was only a subtle scheme or deceptive device to entice or inveigle her to accept him and to obtain her consent to the sexual act, could justify the award of damages pursuant to Article 21 not because of such promise to marry but because of the fraud and deceit behind it and the willful injury to her honor and reputation which followed thereafter. It is essential, however, that such injury should have been committed in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public policy. In that case of Baksh v. CA and Gonzales,

Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict. (Art. 2176 of the Civil Code) In other words, compensation must be paid to a person suffering damage because of the act or omission of another, there being no pre-existing obligation arising from contracts. Article 2176 of the Civil Code, which defines a quasi-delict is limited to negligent acts or omissions and excludes the notion of willfulness or intent . Quasi-delict, known in Spanish legal treatises as culpa aquiliana, is a civil law concept while torts is an Anglo-American or common law concept. Torts is much broader than culpa aquiliana because it includes not only negligence, but intentional criminal acts as well such as assault and battery, false imprisonment and deceit. In the general scheme of the Philippine legal system envisio

Strict liability or "strict tort," also known as "absolute liability" or "liability without fault," is a concept in tort law different from intentional tort and negligent tort. A person is liable for damages regardless of fault or negligence and regardless of intention. After certain facts have been established as a premise, liability under strict tort is almost absolute because the law expects every person to comply with certain absolute duties to make society safe. These absolute duties are required so that persons are safe from extremely hazardous circumstances because of certain presumptions that people hold every day. For example, people presume that the food they buy is safe so they eat it immediately without feeling the need to inspect with extreme care; hence, there is a need for strict tort against food makers. Under the Civil Code of the Philippines, strict liability is imposed by Articles 1314, 1711, 1712, 1723, 2183, 2184, 2187, 2189, 2190,

Intentional tort is one perpetrated by someone who has intention to do that which has been declared wrong by the law. For there to be intentional torn, the actor (called "tortfeasor") must have had the desire to cause the consequences of his act or must have believed that the consequences of his act, in the ordinary and natural sequence of things, would certainly result therefrom.

Below is a lecture video on elementary dilemmas in Philippine tort law. Negligent tort is the failure to act in accordance with the level of care or the level of diligence required under the circumstances surrounding the case. It is a voluntary act or omission which results in injury to other persons, without intention to cause such injury. Although people use the terms "tort" and "quasi-delict" interchangeably in everyday language, the law actually draws the line. The second is merely a subject under the first. "Quasi-delict" refers to damage resulting from fault or negligence without pre-existing contractual relationship. On the other hand, "tort" covers all kinds of damage done to another with or without intention. In sum, tort as a subject in law covers intentional damages, unintentional damages or negligence resulting in damages and "strict liability" (those provided for by law regardless of intention or negligence).

Common carriers are persons, corporations, firms or associations engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passengers or goods or both, by land, water, or air, for compensation, offering their services to the public. Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the passengers transported by them, according to all the circumstances of each case. (Civil Code of the Philippines) In short, bus companies, tricycles for hire, train companies, airlines and vessels for hire are common carriers.  Passengers do not contract with them merely for transportation but also for decent treatment. In one case (2017), the Supreme Court of the Philpppines ruled that, in an action based on a breach of contract of carriage, the aggrieved party does not have to prove that the common carrier was at fault or was negligent. All that he has to prove is the exis

In a Supreme-Court-settled case, it was held that a business intended to serve the travelling public primarily, a contract of carriage is imbued with public interest. The law governing common carriers consequently imposes an exacting standard. Article 1735 of the Civil Code provides that in case of lost or damaged goods, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as required by Article 1733. Thus, in an action based on a breach of contract of carriage, the aggrieved party does not have to prove that the common carrier was at fault or was negligent. All that he has to prove is the existence of the contract and the fact of its non-performance by the carrier. (G.R. No. 165266. December 15, 2010) Law expert Fr. Ranhilio Callangan Aquino on November 25, 2018 at 3:40PM posted on Facebook his disappointment regarding the service of Cebu Pacific, an airline company in the Philippines (a common

A corporation is an artificial being created by operation of law, having the right of succession and the powers, attributes, and properties expressly authorized by law or incident to its existence. A corporation is one type of business organization. It is also one of the most important factors in economic development. Other types of business organizations are sole proprietorship, partnership and joint venture. A sole proprietorship is often called a "one-man business organization." The owner is personally liable to creditors or obligees, but he enjoys all profits of the business to the exclusion of others. Partnership is a business organization based on mutual trust and confidence. By the contract of partnership two or more persons bind themselves to contribute money, property, or industry to a common fund, with the intention of dividing the profits among themselves. Joint venture is a one-time coming together of person, whether they be natural or juridical, for a par

In Liban v. Gordon (2009), the Supreme Court held that the office of the Philippine National Red Cross (PNRC) Chairman is NOT  a government office or an office in a government-owned or controlled corporation for purposes of the prohibition in Section 13, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. However, since the PNRC Charter is void insofar as it creates the PNRC as a private corporation, the PNRC should incorporate under the Corporation Code and register with the Securities and Exchange Commission if it wants to be a private corporation. In 2011, the Supreme Court reconsidered and changed its mind. A closer look at the nature of the PNRC would show that there is none like it not just in terms of structure, but also in terms of history, public service and official status accorded to it by the State and the international community. There is merit in PNRCs contention that its structure is sui generis . The PNRC succeeded the chapter of the American Red Cross which was in existence in

The Constitution recognizes two classes of corporations. The first refers to private corporations created under a general law. The second refers to government-owned or controlled corporations created by special charters. Section 16, Article XII of the Constitution provides: Sec. 16. The Congress shall not, except by general law, provide for the formation, organization, or regulation of private corporations. Government-owned or controlled corporations may be created or established by special charters in the interest of the common good and subject to the test of economic viability. The Constitution emphatically prohibits the creation of private corporations except by a general law applicable to all citizens. The purpose of this constitutional provision is to ban private corporations created by special charters, which historically gave certain individuals, families or groups special privileges denied to other citizens. In short, Congress cannot enact a law creating a private co

QUESTION: A company was created under a special law. After that, the law creating it was declared invalid by the Supreme Court. Can you say that said corporation is a de facto corporation? No, said company cannot be considered a de facto corporation. Private corporations can only be created under the general law on incorporation -- the Corporation Code of the Philippines (B.P. 68). Under special laws, only public corporations may be created. If a private corporation has been created under a special law, no valid attempt at legal incorporation has been made; hence, it cannot be claimed that said corporation has a de facto status.

Since February 8, 1935, the legislature has not passed even a single piece legislation establishing a private corporation. Which provision of the constitution hinders the passing of such law? (2008 bar examination) "The Congress shall not, except by general law , provide for the formation, organization, or regulation of private corporations. Government-owned or controlled corporations may be created or established by special charters in the interest of the common good and subject to the test of economic viability." (Article XII, Section 16 of the 1987 Constitution) The power of Congress to create laws is plenary and overarching. The only limitation is the Constitution and this is one of the few limitations. Without this limitation, Congress would be capable of limiting the creation of corporations via the passage of laws. This creates an unfair situation where only those who have influence can create corporations. What is worse is that the wealthiest businessmen can influ

Let's start with the undeniable premise that a corporation is an artificial being created by operation of law. It owes its life to the state, its birth being purely dependent on its will. As Berle so aptly stated: "Classically, a corporation was conceived as an artificial person, owing its existence through creation by a sovereign power." As a matter of fact, the statutory language employed owes much to Chief Justice Marshall, who in the Dartmouth College decision defined a corporation precisely as "an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law. " The well-known authority Fletcher could summarize the matter thus: "A corporation is not in fact and in reality a person, but the law treats it as though it were a person by process of fiction, or by regarding it as an artificial person distinct and separate from its individual stockholders. It owes its existence to law. It is an artificial person created by law for certai

A corporation as a creature of the State is presumed to exist for the common good. (G. R. No. 144891. May 27, 2004) In fact, corporations cannot exist without the consent of the State. It is the State through its government's lawmaking body that breathes life into corporations as entities with separate and distinct personality (in short, a person) under the law. Unlike partnerships, mere agreement of parties cannot create a corporation. In other words, there can be no corporations without the imprimatur of the State. A corporation is an artificial being, invinsible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law. (Chief Justice Marshall in Trustees of Dartmouth College vs. Woodward, 4 Wheat., 636.) The word "corporation" is but a collective name for the corporators or members who compose an incorporated association; and where it is said that a corporation is itself a person, or being, or creature, this must be understood in a figurative sense only. (Morawetz on

There are two modes: extrajudicial settlement and judicial settlement. Obviously, extrajudicial settlement happens without the court's intervention while judicial settlement happens under the auspices of the court. In case of extrajudicial partition, it depends on the number of heirs. If there is only one heir, only an affidavit of self-adjudication. If there are two or more hairs, a deed of extrajudicial settlement or a deed of partition is required. In case of judicial partition, four things may happen. First, there may be a partition in accordance with Rule 69. Second, there may be a summary settlement of estate of small value. Third, there may be a petition for letters of administration. Fourth, there may be a probate of wills. In the probate of wills, there may be a petition for letters testamentary or, if no executor is named in the will, a petition for letters of administration with the will annexed.

[T]here lies a marked distinction between an action and a special proceeding. An action is a formal demand of one's right in a court of justice in the manner prescribed by the court or by the law. It is the method of applying legal remedies according to definite established rules. The term special proceeding" may be defined as an application or proceeding to establish the status or right of a party, or a particular fact. Usually, in special proceedings, no formal pleadings are required unless the statute expressly so provides. In special proceedings, the remedy is granted generally upon an application or motion. Citing American Jurisprudence, a noted authority in Remedial Law expounds further: It may accordingly be stated generally that actions include those proceedings which are instituted and prosecuted according to the ordinary rules and provisions relating to actions at law or suits in equity, and that special proceedings include those proceedings which are not ordina

Rules between ordinary actions and special proceedings are, generally, different from each other. Below are the differences. As to ORDINARY ACTIONS, the purpose is to protect or enforce a right or prevent or redress a wrong. Generally, ordinary actions are adversarial in nature and they involve two or more parties. They are governed by ordinary rules under the Rules of Court and supplemented by special rules in case of deficiency. Courts of general jurisdiction may take cognizance of ordinary actions which are initiated by pleadings and parties respond through an answer. Laws and rules on pleadings applicable (for examples, the filing of an answer, counterclaim, cross-claim, third- party complaint, etc.). As to SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS, the purpose is to establish a right, status, or particular fact. They are not adversarial and may involve only one party. Special proceedings are governed by special rules and supplemented by ordinary rules in case of deficiency. Courts of limited juris

If special regulations are prescribed, they shall be applied. However, in the absence of special provisions, the rules prescribed in ordinary actions shall be applied in special procedures as far as feasible. (Sec. 2, Rule 72) The Rules of Court does not contain all special proceedings in the world. Many of them are provided under special laws and special rules issued by the Supreme Court. Examples of these are the Writ of Kalikasan and a Petition for Declaration of Heirship. The distinction between final orders and interlocutory orders in civil proceedings to determine applicability issues does not strictly apply to orders in special proceedings. Multiple appeals are permitted in special proceedings as a practical recognition of the possibility that material issues may be finally determined at various stages of the special proceedings. Section 1, Rule 109 of the Rules of Court enumerates the specific instances in which multiple appeals may be resorted to in special proceedings. (G

Rule 1 Sec 3(c). A special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact. Rule 72 Sec 1. Subject matter of special proceedings. Rules of special proceedings are provided for in the following cases: (1) Settlement of estate of deceased persons (2) Escheat (3) Guardianship and custody of children (4) Trustees (5) Adoption (6) Rescission and revocation of adoption (7) Hospitalization of insane persons (8) Habeas corpus (9) Change of name (10) Voluntary dissolution of corporations (11) Judicial approval of voluntary recognition of minor natural children (12) Constitution of family home (13) Declaration of absence and death (14) Cancellation of correction of entries in the civil registry. The list is not exclusive. There are special proceedings not included in this list but they fall under the definition of a special proceeding (that is, the petition in court seeks to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact). In the absen

Here are notes on the law and rules on venue and jurisdiction. These are topics under the remedial-law subject civil procedure. Let's start with a definition of "venue." Venue is the place where the action is triable, whether real or personal. It relates to the place of trial. It touches more of convenience of the parties rather than the substance of the case. It is procedural and not substantive. Let's differentiate venue and jurisdiction. Venue is the locality or place where the suit may be had. It relates to jurisdiction over the person rather than subject matter. Provisions relating to venue establish a relation between plaintiff and defendant. Jurisdiction, on the other hand, is the power of the court to decide the case on the merits. Provisions on jurisdiction establish a relation between the court and the subject matter. A court cannot motu proprio dismiss a complaint on the ground of improper venue since improper venue may be waived for failure to