[CivPro] | [IV.

Venue] 1
[Lancey]

Sps. Lantin vs. Hon. Lantion

Sps. (Renato and Angelina) Lantin vs. Lantion (RTC Judge), Planters Devt Bank, Umali,
Perse, Mosca (officers of the bank), Register of Deeds (Lipa City), Clerk of Court and
Sheriff of RTC (Batangas)
[GR NO. 160053] | [Aug. 28, 2006] | [J. Quisumbing]

DOCTRINE
The general rules on venue of actions shall not apply where the parties, before
the filing of the action, have validly agreed in writing on an exclusive venue.
The parties must be able to show that such stipulation is exclusive.
In the absence of qualifying or restrictive words, the stipulation should be
deemed as merely an agreement on an additional forum, not as limiting venue
to the specified place

FACTS
Sps. Lantin took several (peso and dollar) loans from Planters Bank and executed
several real estate mortgages and PNs to cover the loans.
o They defaulted on payments so the Bank foreclosed the mortgaged lots. At
the public auction, Planters Bank was the winning bidder.
Sps. Lantin filed against Planters and its officers a complaint for Declaration of
Nullity or Annulment of Sale/Mortgage, Reconveyance, Accounting, Permanent
Injunction and Damages with the RTC (Lipa, Batangas).
o Argument: That only their peso loans were covered by the mortgages and
that these were already fully paid. The mortgages did NOT cover their
unpaid dollar loans.
o Planters et al filed Motion to Dismiss on the ground of improper venue
since the loan agreements restricted/stipulated the venue of any suit in
Metro Manila.
RTC dismissed complaint; granted Motion to Dismiss (on improper venue)
Sps. Lantin filed MR.
o Argment: RTC prejudge the validity of the loan documents since it based
dismissal on the venue stipulation in the agreement.
o RTC denied MR; merely ruled on procedural issue of venue
Sps. Lantin filed petition for certiorari
Sps. Lantin Argument:
o Since the validity of the loan documents were put in issue, the venue
stipulation is also at issue (i.e. disputed).
o The venue stipulation is NOT an exclusive one under Rule 4, Sec. 4 (b) of
Rules of CivPro.
The venue in the loan agreement was not specified with particularity.
Thus, the Rules of Court would apply!
o The venue stipulation is only for convenience of plaintiff.
 o Since the complaint involves several causes of action (not solely from the
loan documents), the venue stipulation wont apply.
Planters Bank et al Argument:
o Sps. Lantin did NOT assail the loan documents in the complaint and the issue
of validity was only an afterthought.
o The venue stipulation conforms to the Unimasters Case doctrine that a
venue stipulation employ categorical and suitably limiting language to the
effect that the parties agree that the venue of actions between them should
be laid only and exclusively at a definite place.
o The venue stipulation is exclusive.

PROCEDURE SUMMARY

Action Decision
Sps. Lantin filed complaint with RTC
(Lipa, Batangas)
Planters Bank et al filed Motion to RTC dismissed complaint; granted
Dismiss (arguing that venue stipulation Motion to Dismiss (on the ground of
provided Metro Manila) improper venue)
Sps. Lantin filed MR RTC denied MR
Sps. Lantin filed Petition for Certiorari

ISSUE
1. WON Rule 4, Sec. 4 (b) applies (as claimed by Sps. Lantin) NO
2. WON effecting the exclusive venue stipulation would be prejudgment on the
validity of the loan documents NOT RAISED as issue

RATIO
1. WON Rule 4, Sec. 4 (b) applies (and thus the Rules of Court on venue
would apply) NO, because the parties have agreed in writing on an
exclusive venue.
a. The general rules on venue of actions shall not apply where the
parties, before the filing of the action, have validly agreed in writing
on an exclusive venue.
b. The parties must be able to show that such stipulation is exclusive.
i. In the absence of qualifying or restrictive words, the stipulation should
be deemed as merely an agreement on an additional forum, not as
limiting venue to the specified place
c. The provisions of several real estate mortgages and promissory notes read:
i. 18. In the event of suit arising out of or in connection with this
mortgage and/or the promissory note/s secured by this mortgage, the
parties hereto agree to bring their causes of auction (sic) exclusively
in the proper court of Makati, Metro Manila or at such other venue
chosen by the Mortgagee, the Mortgagor waiving for this purpose
any other venue
 [CivPro] | [IV. Venue] 3
[Lancey]

ii. I/We further submit that the venue of any legal action arising out of
this note shall exclusively be at the proper court of Metropolitan
Manila, Philippines or any other venue chosen by the BANK, waiving
for this purpose any other venue provided by the Rules of
Court
d. The words exclusively and waiving for this purpose any other
venue are restrictive and used advisedly to meet the requirements.
2. WON effecting the exclusive venue stipulation is prejudgment on the
validity of loan documents This was NOT an ISSUE because Sps. Lantin
never assailed the validity of the mortgage contracts securing their peso
loans.
a. Sps. Lantin only assailed the terms and coverage of the mortgage contracts
that their peso loans had already been paid and that the mortgage contracts
did NOT include their dollar loans.
b. Since the issue of whether the mortgages should be discharged and where
the mortgages cover the dollar loans arose out of the loan documents
the venue stipulation is also applicable.

DECISION
Petition DISMISSED.
RTC Orders are affirmed. Case is dismissed for improper venue.