Civil Procedure: Rule 4 Venue
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.
Section 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.
Section 3. Venue of actions against nonresidents. – If any of the defendants does not reside and ins 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 of any portion thereof is situated or found.
Section 4. When Rule not applicable. – This Rule shall not apply –
(a) In those cases where a specific rule or law provides otherwise; or
(b) Where the parties have validly agreed in writing before the filing of the action on the exclusive venue thereof.
Diaz v. Adiong, 219 SCRA 631 (’93)
Facts: Certain public officers instituted separate criminal & civil complaints arising fr. libel vs. the publisher & editor of the Mindanao Kris, a newspaper of general circulation in Cotabato City in the RTC of Marawi City. Diaz claims it should not be in Marawi since the resps. didn’t hold office there; nor was the article published there.
Held: An offended party who is at the same time a public official can only institute an action arising fr. libel in 2 venues: the place where he holds office & the place where the alleged libelous articles were printed & first published. In this case, although it is indubitable that venue was improperly laid, unless & until the deft. objects to the venue in a MTD prior to a responsive pleading, the venue cannot truly be said to have been improperly laid since, for all practical intents & purposes, the venue through technically wrong may yet be considered acceptable to the parties for whose convenience the rules on venue had been devised.
The laying of venue is procedural rather than substantive, relating as it does to jurisdiction of the ct. over the person rather than the subject matter. Venue relates to trial not to jurisdiction. The rule, therefore, is that objections to improper venue must be made in a MTD before any responsive pleading is filed (Sec. 1 Rule 16). Otherwise, it may be deemed waived.
LECTURE ON VENUE:
a) where P resides or
b) where property or port6ion thereof is situated or found
2. when a specific Rule or Law provides otherwise
3. when parties validly agreed in writing before filing of action in the exclusive venue thereof
L: state in agreement “shall exclusively be” or “shall only be”; if not phrased this way, can still sue elsewhere
Person dies: (governed by Rule 87) action dismissed in cases where decedent is required to personally perform his obligation, where his estate or his heirs’ defense is that the relief cannot be complied with. If action is for a sum of money, file it as a creditor in the settlement of estate proceedings
Pauper litigant: one who has no money or property sufficient and available for food, shelter and basic necessities is exempted from payment of fees.
Counsel for D: contest indigent status of party by filing a motion to reverse order declaring party as pauper litigant
P files Complaint So D files answer
D files counterclaim
So P files Answer to counterclaim
P then files Amended Complaint due to new matters raised
So D files an amended answer called a reply
A third guy files a CROSSCLAIM against D
So D files an answer to the crossclaim
And he files his own crossclaim against Third
While P files his Answer to the 3rd Party Complaint
THE OGDEN CASE
Cause of action
X breach of contract
Source: University of the Philippines