GR 48161; (November, 1942) (Digest)
G.R. No. 48161 ; November 28, 1942
LEONCIO JUANILLO, plaintiff-appellant, vs. RAMON DE LA RAMA, defendant-appellee.
FACTS
The plaintiff-appellant filed an action upon a contract not in writing. The proper venue for such an action should have been the place of residence of the defendant, which was the municipality of Pasay, where summons was served upon him. However, the case was filed in the municipal court of the City of Manila. The defendant-appellee, knowing that the municipal court of Manila had no jurisdiction over his person due to improper venue, did not appear at the trial. He argued that he had no legal duty to appear. The municipal court proceeded to try the case on the merits and rendered judgment against the defendant. It was only after this judgment was rendered that the defendant filed a motion for reconsideration, pleading for the first time a lack of jurisdiction over his person due to improper venue.
ISSUE
Whether the defendant-appellee waived his right to object to improper venue by failing to raise the issue before judgment was rendered on the merits.
RULING
Yes, the defendant waived his objection to improper venue. The Supreme Court held:
1. Venue in an action upon a contract not in writing should be the place of residence of the defendant. However, venue is a matter of procedure, not jurisdiction over the subject matter, and can be waived expressly or impliedly, even in inferior courts.
2. The defendant, knowing from the beginning that the venue was improperly laid, allowed the trial to proceed and a judgment to be rendered against him without raising any objection. By doing so, he impliedly waived his right to challenge the venue. An objection to improper venue cannot be raised for the first time after an unfavorable judgment has been rendered.
3. Since the plea of wrong venue was waived in the municipal court, it could not be raised for the first time on appeal to the Court of First Instance. A defendant cannot plead on appeal any defense that was not interposed in the lower court. Therefore, the Court of First Instance erred in dismissing the case based on the defense of wrong venue. The order of dismissal was reversed.