VENUE OF ACTIONS & VENUE STIPULATIONS - 51 PJP 21

Date Published:
  1. RECOMMENDED CITATION: DELA PEÑA, Mark Angelo S. (2024), “Venue of Actions and Venue Stipulations,” 51 PJP 21, available at <insert link> (last accessed on <date>).
  2. PJP BLOG: Although this content has received a favorable recommendation for citation from the admin team of PJP, it is not yet considered a peer-reviewed journal entry.
  3. CONTACT US: For immediate action on requests, comments, concerns, suggestions, and other forms of feedback, please message us on Facebook at www.m.me/projectjurisprudence.

Venue v. jurisdiction

Venue is different from jurisdiction in that the first is a concept of procedure while the second is a matter of substantive law.

The first depends on the location of the real property involved or the residence of the parties while the second depends on the allegations made in the complaint. Thus, jurisdiction is “determined” by the allegations in the pleading.

The first is waivable by silence or failure to object to impropriety of venue while the second is not. In fact, objections to jurisdiction may be raised at any time even on appeal. Notwithstanding the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, “estoppel on questions of jurisdiction” remains to be the exception rather than the general rule.

The first is a procedural tool designed to cater to the convenience of the parties while the second is an allocation of powers made by Congress through law. Hence, while the first remains within the prerogatives of the Judicial Branch and second is properly the prerogative of the Legislative Branch.

The impropriety of venue is not a ground for a motion to dismiss. Lack of jurisdiction is one of the four grounds for a motion to dismiss, others being litis pendentia, res judicata, and prescription.

Venue stipulations

Parties may stipulate in writing before the commencement of the action on the exclusive venue thereof.

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, more particularly: the language thereof, 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.[1]

In one case,[2] the Supreme Court held that a party to a restrictive venue stipulation under a contract, who directly assails the validity of the subject contract, claiming forgery in their execution, “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.”

[1] Legaspi v. Republic, 581 Phil. 381 (2008).

[2] 750 Phil. 891[ G.R. No. 204444. January 14, 2015 ] VIRGILIO C. BRIONES, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND CASH ASIA CREDIT CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.