Briones vs. CA

FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 204444 January 14, 2015
VIRGILIO C. BRIONES, Petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and CASH ASIA CREDIT
CORPORATION, Respondents.
DECISION
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
Assailed in this petition for certiorari1 are the Decision2 dated March 5, 2012

and the Resolution3 dated October 4, 2012 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in
CA-G.R. SP No. 117474, which annulled the Orders dated September 20,
20104 and October 22, 20105 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch
173 (RTC) in Civil Case No. 10-124040, denying private respondent Cash Asia
Credit Corporation's (Cash Asia) motion to dismiss on the ground of improper
venue.
The Facts
The instant case arose from a Complaint6 dated August 2, 2010 filed by

Virgilio C. Briones (Briones) for Nullity of Mortgage Contract, Promissory
Note, Loan Agreement, Foreclosure of Mortgage, Cancellation of Transfer
Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 290846, and Damages against Cash Asia before
the RTC.7 In his complaint, Briones alleged that he is the owner of a property
covered by TCT No. 160689 (subject property), and that, on July 15, 2010, his
sister informed him that his property had been foreclosed and a writ of
possession had already been issued in favor of Cash Asia.8 Upon
investigation, Briones discovered that: (a) on December 6, 2007, he
purportedly executed a promissory note,9 loan agreement,10 and deed of real
estate mortgage11 covering the subject property (subject contracts) in favor
of Cash Asia in order to obtain a loan in the amount of ₱3,500,000.00 from
the latter;12 and (b) since the said loan was left unpaid, Cash Asia proceeded
to foreclose his property.13 In this relation, Briones claimed that he never
contracted any loans from Cash Asia as he has been living and working in
Vietnam since October 31, 2007. He further claimed that he only went back
to the Philippines on December 28, 2007 until January 3, 2008 to spend the
holidays with his family, and that during his brief stay in the Philippines,
nobody informed him of any loan agreement entered into with Cash Asia.
Essentially, Briones assailed the validity of the foregoing contracts claiming
his signature to be forged.14
For its part, Cash Asia filed a Motion to Dismiss15 dated August 25, 2010,
praying for the outright dismissal of Briones’s complaint on the ground of
improper venue.16 In this regard, Cash Asia pointed out the venue stipulation
in the subject contracts stating that "all legal actions arising out of this
notice in connection with the Real Estate Mortgage subject hereof shall only
be brought in or submitted tothe jurisdiction of the proper court of Makati
City."17 In view thereof, it contended that all actions arising out of the subject
contracts may only be exclusively brought in the courts of Makati City, and
as such, Briones’s complaint should be dismissed for having been filed in the
City of Manila.18
In response, Briones filed an opposition,19 asserting, inter alia, that he should

not be covered by the venue stipulation in the subject contracts as he was
never a party therein. He also reiterated that his signatures on the said
contracts were forgeries.20
The RTC Ruling
In an Order21 dated September 20, 2010, the RTC denied Cash Asia’s motion
to dismiss for lack of merit. In denying the motion, the RTC opined that the
parties must be afforded the right to be heard in view of the substance of
Briones’s cause of action against Cash Asia as stated in the complaint.22
Cash Asia moved for reconsideration23 which was, however, denied in an

Order24 dated October 22, 2010. Aggrieved, it filed a petition for
certiorari25 before the CA.
The CA Ruling
In a Decision26 dated March 5, 2012, the CA annulled the RTC Orders, and

accordingly, dismissed Briones’s complaint without prejudice to the filing of
the same before the proper court in Makati City.27 It held that the RTC
gravely abused its discretion in denying Cash Asia’s motion to dismiss,
considering that the subject contracts clearly provide that actions arising
therefrom should be exclusively filed before the courts of Makati City
only.28 As such, the CA concluded that Briones’s complaint should have been
dismissed outright on the ground of improper venue,29 this, notwithstanding
Briones’s claim of forgery.
Dissatisfied, Briones moved for reconsideration,30 which was, however,

denied in a Resolution31 dated October 4, 2012, hence, this petition.
The Issue Before the Court

The primordial issue for the Court’s resolution is whether or not the CA
gravely abused its discretion in ordering the outright dismissal of Briones’s
complaint on the ground of improper venue.
The Court’s Ruling
The petition is meritorious.
At the outset, the Court stresses that "[t]o justify the grant of the
extraordinary remedy of certiorari, [the petitioner] must satisfactorily show
that the court or quasi-judicial authority gravely abused the discretion
conferred upon it. Grave abuse of discretion connotes judgment exercised in
a capricious and whimsical manner that is tantamount to lack of jurisdiction.
To be considered ‘grave,’ discretion must be exercised in a despotic manner
by reason of passion or personal hostility, and must be so patent and gross
as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform
the duty enjoined by or to act at all in contemplation of law."32 Guided by the
foregoing considerations, the Court finds that the CA gravely abused its
discretion in ordering the outright dismissal of Briones’s complaint against
Cash Asia, without prejudice to its re-filing before the proper court in Makati
City.
Rule 4 of the Rules of Court governs the rules on venue of civil actions, to
wit:
Rule 4
VENUE OF ACTIONS
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.
SEC. 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.
SEC. 3. Venue of actions against nonresidents. — If any of the defendants

does not resideand is 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 or any portion
thereof is situated or found.
SEC. 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.
Based therefrom, the general rule is that the venue of real actions is the
court which has jurisdiction over the area wherein the real property involved,
or a portion thereof, is situated; while the venue of personal actions is the
court which has jurisdiction where the plaintiff or the defendant resides, at
the election of the plaintiff. As an exception, jurisprudence in Legaspi v. Rep.
of the Phils.33 instructs that the parties, thru a written instrument, may either
introduce another venue where actions arising from such instrument may be
filed, or restrict the filing of said actions in a certain exclusive venue, viz.:
The parties, however, are not precluded from agreeing in writing on an

exclusive venue, as qualified by Section 4 of the same rule. Written
stipulations as to venue may be restrictive in the sense that the suit may be
filed only in the place agreed upon, or merely permissive in that the parties
may file their suit not only in the place agreed upon but also in the places
fixed by law. As in any other agreement, what is essential is the
ascertainment of the intention of the parties respecting the matter.
As regards restrictive stipulations on venue, jurisprudence instructs that it

must be shown that such stipulation is exclusive. In the absence of qualifying
or restrictive words, such as "exclusively," "waiving for this purpose any
other venue," "shall only" preceding the designation of venue, "to the
exclusion of the other courts," or words of similar import, the stipulation
should be deemed as merely an agreement on an additional forum, not as
limiting venue to the specified place.34 (Emphases and underscoring
supplied)
In this relation, case law likewise provides that in cases where the complaint assails only the terms,
conditions, and/or coverage of a written instrument and not its validity, the exclusive venue stipulation contained
therein shall still be binding on the parties, and thus, the complaint may be properly dismissed on the ground of
improper venue.35 Conversely, therefore, a complaint directly assailing the validity of the written instrument itself
should not be bound by the exclusive venue stipulation contained therein and should be filed in accordance with
the general rules on venue. To be sure, it would be inherently consistent for a complaint of this nature to recognize
the exclusive venue stipulation when it, in fact, precisely assails the validity of the instrument in which such
stipulation is contained.
In this case, the venue stipulation found in the subject contracts is indeed
restrictive in nature, considering that it effectively limits the venue of the
actions arising therefrom to the courts of Makati City. However, it must be
emphasized that Briones' s complaint directly assails the validity of the
subject contracts, claiming forgery in their execution. Given this
circumstance, Briones cannot be expected to comply with the aforesaid
venue stipulation, as his compliance therewith would mean an implicit
recognition of their validity. Hence, pursuant to the general rules on venue,
Briones properly filed his complaint before a court in the City of Manila where
the subject property is located.
In conclusion, the CA patently erred and hence committed grave abuse of

discretion in dismissing Briones's complaint on the ground of improper
venue.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. Accordingly, the Decision dated

March 5, 2012 and the Resolution dated October 4, 2012 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 117474 are hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The
Orders dated September 20, 2010 and October 22, 2010 of the Regional Trial
Court of Manila, Branch 173 in Civil Case No. 10-124040 are REINSTATED.
SO ORDERED.
ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO

Chief Justice
Chairperson
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
CASTRO
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ

Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the
conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before
the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO

Chief Justice
Footnotes
1
Rollo, pp. 3-19.
2
Id. at 23-30. Penned by Associate Justice Edwin D. Sorongon with
Associate Justices Noel G. Tijam and Elihu A. Ybanez, concurring.
3
Id. at 39-40.
4
Id. at 86. Penned by Judge Armando A. Yanga.
5
Id. at 88.
6
Id. at 51-54.
7
Id. at 51-53.
8
Id. at 51-52.
9
Id. at 59-60.
10
Id. at 61-62.
11
Id. at 63-66.
12
Id. at 52.
13
Id. at 51-52.
14
Id. at 52.
15
Id. at 81-84.

Briones vs. CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Briones vs. CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Briones vs. CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 204444 January 14, 2015

Assailed in this petition for certiorari1 are the Decision2 dated March 5, 2012

The instant case arose from a Complaint6 dated August 2, 2010 filed by

In response, Briones filed an opposition,19 asserting, inter alia, that he should

The RTC Ruling

Cash Asia moved for reconsideration23 which was, however, denied in an

In a Decision26 dated March 5, 2012, the CA annulled the RTC Orders, and

Dissatisfied, Briones moved for reconsideration,30 which was, however,

The Issue Before the Court

The Court’s Ruling

The petition is meritorious.

SECTION 1. Venue of real actions. — Actions affecting title to or possession of

SEC. 2. Venue of personal actions. — All other actions may be commenced

SEC. 3. Venue of actions against nonresidents. — If any of the defendants

(a) In those cases where a specific rule or law provides otherwise; or

The parties, however, are not precluded from agreeing in writing on an

As regards restrictive stipulations on venue, jurisprudence instructs that it

In conclusion, the CA patently erred and hence committed grave abuse of

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. Accordingly, the Decision dated

MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO

JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ

MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO

You might also like