GR 142523; (November, 2001) (Digest)
G.R. No. 142523 ; November 27, 2001
MARIANO L. GUMABON, et al., petitioners, vs. AQUILINO T. LARIN, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioners executed a “Deed of Sale With Right of Repurchase” over a parcel of land in Pampanga in favor of respondent Larin in 1958. Thirty-nine years later, petitioners filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, seeking the return of the certificate of title from Larin, alleging full payment of their loan. Respondent, in his answer with counterclaim, asserted the transaction was a true sale and that the right to repurchase had prescribed. The RTC initially dismissed respondent’s counterclaim for lack of a certification of non-forum shopping and allowed petitioners to present evidence ex-parte after respondent’s failure to attend pre-trial.
After petitioners submitted their memorandum, the case was re-raffled to Judge Salvador C. Ceguera following the voluntary inhibition of the original judge. Judge Ceguera, motu proprio, issued an order dismissing the complaint on the ground of improper venue. He ruled it was a real action affecting title to land in Pampanga and should have been filed there, not in Quezon City. Petitioners challenged this, arguing respondent never objected to venue and had actively sought affirmative relief from the Quezon City RTC.
ISSUE
Whether a trial court can motu proprio dismiss an action on the ground of improper venue.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court ruled that a trial court cannot motu proprio dismiss a case for improper venue. Venue is a procedural rule primarily for the convenience of the litigants, unlike jurisdiction which is conferred by law and can be raised by the court at any time. Under Section 4, Rule 4 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, an objection to improper venue is deemed waived if not raised either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer. Furthermore, Section 1, Rule 9 explicitly lists the defenses that are not waived and can be acted upon by the court motu proprio: lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, litis pendentia, res judicata, and prescription. Improper venue is not included in this list. Since respondent Larin participated in the proceedings, sought relief, and never challenged venue, he effectively waived any objection. The Quezon City RTC therefore erred in dismissing the case on its own motion based on improper venue. The order of dismissal was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.