[130] UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES V. MAUNLAD HOMES INC.  RTC affirmed the MeTC decision.
 RTC affirmed the MeTC decision. RTC noted that the property is located in
GR No. 190071 | August 15, 2012 | Brion, J. | Venue
NATURE OF THE CASE: Petition for review on certiorari of a decision of the CA
CASE SUMMARY: An action for unlawful detainer was instituted against Maunlad
Homes by Union Bank. Maunlad Homes questions the propriety of the venue of Union
Bank’s unlawful detainer action which was filed in Makati City while the contested
property is located in Malolos, Bulacan. Citing Section 1, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court,
Maunlad Homes claimed that the unlawful detainer action should have been filed with
the municipal trial court of the municipality or city where the real property involved is
situated. Union Bank, on the other hand, justified the filing of the complaint with the
MeTC of Makati City on the venue stipulation in the contract which states that “[t]he
venue of all suits and actions arising out [of] or in connection with this Contract to Sell
shall be at Makati City.” The Supreme Court held that Union Bank rightfully filed the
complaint with the MeTC of Makati City. SC ruled the validity of a stipulation in a
contract providing for a venue for ejectment actions other than that stated in the Rules
of Court.
DOCTRINE: While Section 1, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court states that ejectment
actions shall be filed in “the municipal trial court of the municipality or city wherein the
real property involved x x x is situated[,]” Section 4 of the same Rule provides that the
rule shall not apply “[w]here the parties have validly agreed in writing before the filing
of the action on the exclusive venue thereof.” Precisely, in this case, the parties
provided for a different venue. In Villanueva v. Judge Mosqueda, etc., et al., 115
SCRA 904 (1982), the Court upheld the validity of a stipulation in a contract providing
for a venue for ejectment actions other than that stated in the Rules of Court. Since
the unlawful detainer action is connected with the contract, Union Bank rightfully filed
the complaint with the MeTC of Makati City.
FACTS:
 Union Bank, as seller, and respondent Maunlad Homes, Inc., as buyer, entered
into a contract to sell involving the Maunlad Shopping Mall. Part of the purchase
price was to be paid by Maunlad Homes as down payment, with the balance to be
amortized over the succeeding 180- month period.
 When Maunlad Homes failed to pay despite Union Bank’s repeated demands, an
ejectment suit was instituted by Union Bank before the Metropolitan Trial Court of
Makati City. Maunlad Homes resisted the suit by claiming, among others, that it is
the owner of the property as Union Bank did not reserve ownership of the property
under the terms of the contract.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
 MeTC dismissed Union Bank’s ejectment complaint. It found that Union Bank’s
cause of action was based on a breach of contract and that both parties are
claiming a better right to possess the property based on their respective claims of
ownership of the property.
 MeTC ruled that the appropriate action to resolve these conflicting claims was an
accion reivindicatoria, over which it had no jurisdiction.
Malolos, Bulacan, but the ejectment suit was filed by Union Bank in Makati City,
based on the contract stipulation that “[t]he venue of all suits and actions arising
out or in connection with [the] Contract to Sell shall be [in] Makati City.”
 The RTC ruled that the proper venue for the ejectment action is in Malolos,
Bulacan, pursuant to the second paragraph of Section 1, Rule 4 of the Rules of
Court. The RTC declared that Union Bank cannot rely on the waiver of venue
provision in the contract because ejectment is not an action arising out of or
connected with the contract.
 Union Bank appealed the RTC decision to the CA through a petition for review
under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court.
 The CA affirmed the RTC decision. The CA determined that Union Bank’s cause
of action is premised on the interpretation and enforcement of the contract and the
determination of the validity of the rescission, both of which are matters beyond
the jurisdiction of the MeTC. Therefore, it ruled that the dismissal of the ejectment
suit was proper. CA, however, made no further ruling on the issue of venue of the
action.
 From the CA’s judgment, Union Bank appealed to the Court by filing the present
petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
ISSUE and RULING:
Whether or not the unlawful detainer action was filed correctly (YES)
 While Section 1, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court states that ejectment actions shall
be filed in “the municipal trial court of the municipality or city wherein the real
property involved x x x is situated[,]” Section 4 of the same Rule provides that the
rule shall not apply “[w]here the parties have validly agreed in writing before the
filing of the action on the exclusive venue thereof.” Precisely, in this case, the
parties provided for a different venue. In Villanueva v. Judge Mosqueda, etc., et
al., the Court upheld the validity of a stipulation in a contract providing for a venue
for ejectment actions other than that stated in the Rules of Court. Since the
unlawful detainer action is connected with the contract, Union Bank rightfully filed
the complaint with the MeTC of Makati City.
DISPOSITIVE: WHEREFORE, we hereby GRANT the petition and SET ASIDE the
decision dated October 28, 2009 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 107772.
Respondent Maunlad Homes, Inc. is ORDERED TO VACATE the Maunlad Shopping
Mall, the property subject of the case, immediately upon the finality of this Decision.
Respondent Maunlad Homes, Inc. is further ORDERED TO PAY the rentals-in-
arrears, as well as rentals accruing in the interim until it vacates the property.
The case is REMANDED to the Metropolitan Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 64, to
determine the amount of rentals due. In addition to the amount determined as unpaid
rent, respondent Maunlad Homes, Inc. is ORDERED TO PAY legal interest of six
percent (6o/o) per annum, from November 19, 2003, when the demand to pay and to
vacate was made, up to the finality of this Decision. Thereafter, an interest of twelve
percent ( 12%) per annum shall be imposed on the total amount due until full payment
is made.