Villanueva vs Mosqueda (Short case)

Date: August 19, 1982

Ponente: Aquino
Doctrine:
Venue of an action may be changed or transferred from one province to another, by written
agreement of the parties.

Facts:
Case about the venue of an ejectment Suit
There was a supplementary lease agreement, executed on August 19, 1970 between
Basilio Bonifacio (Lessor) and Eduardo Villanueva (Lessee) regarding Bonifacios
house in Tondo Manila
Stipulated: If lessor violates the contract, he can be sued in Manila. If lessee violates
the contract, he can be sued in Masantol, Pampanga
Lessor resides in Masantol while the Lessee resides in Tondo, Manila
Ejectment suit filed by Bonifacio against Villanueva in the Municipal Court of
Masantol.
Villanueva Motion to Dismiss on lack of jurisdiction
Villanueva Venue of the action is manila where the property is located. Stipulation
that the action can be filed in Masantol is void for being contrary to section 2(a), Rule
4 of the Rules of Court
Motion to dismiss was denied by the Municipal Court.
Certiorari filled by Villanueva in CFI of Pampanga. CFI dismissed the petition
o Venue was properly laid in masantol, pursuant to the agreement of the parties
who had validly waived the legal venue.
Villanueva Certiorari to the SC

Issue:
W/N venue can be laid out as a stipulation to a contract? YES
Ruling:
SC: Petition has no merit. Municipal Court of Masantol, like other inferior courts, has
exclusice original jurisdiction to entertain ejectment suits
Section 1(a) of Rule 4: Forcible entry and detainer actions regarding real property
shall be brought in the municipality or city which the subject matter thereof is
situated
o This doesnt refer to the jurisdiction over the subject matter but only to the
place where the ejectment suit may be brought
Section 3, Rule 4: by written agreement of the parties the venue of an
action may be changed or transferred from one province to another.
o Such an agreement was formalized by the lessor and lessee.
Agreement is valid, binding and enforceable.
Case is distinguished from a cse where the parties stipulated that actions on a
construction contract can be instituted at CFI of Naga City. In that case, the
Contractor, a resident of Bacolor Pampanga sued him in the CFI of Pampanga instead
of Naga
o It was held in that case that the suit was properly filed in Pampanga because
the agreement of the parties for the venue of the actions was simply
permissive
Disposition:
Petition is dismissed, lower court decision is affirmed