G.R. No. 161685; July 24, 2007
ANG KEK CHEN, Petitioner, vs. SPOUSES ATTY. ELEAZAR S. CALASAN and LETICIA B. CALASAN, Respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Atty. Eleazar Calasan, born and a registered voter in Aparri, Cagayan, and owner of an ancestral home there, filed a civil case for damages against petitioner Ang Kek Chen in Aparri, Cagayan. The complaint arose from allegedly libelous imputations made by Ang. Ang moved to dismiss the case, arguing improper venue. The Regional Trial Court of Aparri granted the motion, finding that while Atty. Calasan’s legal domicile was in Aparri, his “actual residence” for most of the year was in Las Piñas, Metro Manila, where he lived with his family due to his profession and business.
Respondents elevated the case to the Court of Appeals via a petition for certiorari. Initially, the CA dismissed the petition, upholding the trial court’s finding on improper venue. However, upon reconsideration, the CA reversed itself, set aside the RTC orders, and directed the trial to proceed. This prompted Ang Kek Chen to file the present Petition for Review.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing its initial decision and ruling that the venue for the civil action for damages arising from libel was properly laid in Aparri, Cagayan.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, reversing the CA’s Resolution and reinstating its initial Decision which affirmed the RTC’s dismissal on grounds of improper venue. The Court clarified the distinction between “domicile” and “actual residence” for venue purposes under Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code, which governs venue in libel cases. The law allows filing where any of the offended parties “actually resides” at the time of the offense.
The Court held that “actual residence” refers to the place of habitual abode, not merely legal domicile. The factual findings of the RTC, which the CA initially affirmed, established that respondents, though domiciled in Aparri, Cagayan, were habitual residents of Las Piñas, Metro Manila, where they stayed most of the time due to work. Therefore, their “actual residence” at the time of the alleged libel was Las Piñas, not Aparri. Consequently, the civil action was improperly filed in Aparri. The Court emphasized that a petition for certiorari cannot be used to substitute for a lost appeal, and the RTC committed no grave abuse of discretion in its factual determination on venue.