Venue of actions

The rule on venue of real actions is provided in Section 1, Rule 4 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which reads in part:
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.
On the other hand, Section 2 of Rule 4 of the Rules of Court provides that personal actions[1] must be commenced and tried (1) in the place where the plaintiff resides, or (2) where the defendant resides, or (3) in case of non-resident defendants, where they may be found, at the choice of the plaintiff.[2] This rule on venue does not apply when the law specifically provides otherwise, or when -- before the filing of the action -- the contracting parties agree in writing on the exclusive venue thereof.[3] Venue is not jurisdictional and may be waived by the parties.[4]

A stipulation as to venue does not preclude the filing of the action in other places, unless qualifying or restrictive words are used in the agreement.[5]
[1] One brought for the recovery of personal property, for the enforcement of some contract or recovery of damages for its breach, or for the recovery of damages for the commission of an injury. (Hernandez v. Development Bank of the Philippines, 71 SCRA 290, 292, June 18, 1976). As opposed to a real action, which pertain to actions affecting title to or possession of real property, or any interest therein. A real action should be filed in the area where the real property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated. §1, Rule 4, Rules of Court.

[2] §2, id.

[3] §4, id.

[4] Rudolf Lietz Holdings, Inc. v. Register of Deeds, 344 SCRA 680, 685, November 15, 2000; Philippine Banking Corporation v. Tensuan, 230 SCRA 413, 417, February 28, 1994. See Langkaan Realty Development, Inc. v. United Coconut Planters Bank, 347 SCRA 542, 557, December 8, 2000.

[5] Unimasters Conglomeration, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 335 Phil. 415, 437, February 7, 1997; Philippine Banking Corporation v. Tensuan, 230 SCRA 413, 417, February 28, 1994, p. 420.

Popular Posts