G.R. No. L-80380 September 28, 1988
CARLOS BELL RAYMOND and AGUSTIN ALBA, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. RICARDO M. ILARDE, etc., and SANTIAGO BITERA, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Santiago Bitera filed a complaint for damages against petitioners Carlos Bell Raymond and Agustin Alba with the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo. Petitioners moved to dismiss the action on the ground of improper venue. They argued that while Bitera alleged his address as Iloilo City in his complaint, he was actually and for many years residing at the UPSUMCO Compound in Bais City, Negros Oriental, where he served as officer-in-charge of UPSUMCO. They supported this with Bitera’s own affidavit appended to the complaint, which stated he was a “resident of the UPSUMCO Compound, City of Bais” and indicated his residence certificate was issued in Manjuyod, Negros Oriental.
The trial court denied the motion to dismiss. Petitioners then elevated the matter via a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court dismissed their petition, ruling that while it seemed inequitable to allow the suit in Iloilo given the parties’ connections to UPSUMCO in Negros Oriental, the plaintiff has the right to elect venue based on his alleged legal domicile or residence, which he claimed was Iloilo City.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo is the proper venue for the personal action filed by respondent Bitera.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the lower courts and ordered the dismissal of the civil case on the ground of improper venue. The Court clarified that for purposes of determining venue under Section 2, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court, which allows a personal action to be filed where the plaintiff resides, the term “resides” refers to the plaintiff’s actual residence or place of abode at the time of filing the suit, and not to his legal domicile. Citing Garcia Fule v. Court of Appeals, the Court held that “residence” in venue provisions is construed in its popular sense, meaning the personal, actual, or physical habitation of a person. It signifies bodily presence as an inhabitant in a given place.
Applying this doctrine, the Court found that Bitera’s actual residence was at the UPSUMCO Compound in Bais City, Negros Oriental, as evidenced by his own affidavit and his role as officer-in-charge there. His claim of a permanent abode in Iloilo City pertained to his legal domicile, which is not the controlling factor for venue. Since the action was filed in Iloilo, a place not of his actual residence, and the defendants seasonably objected, venue was improperly laid. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in not dismissing the case.