G.R. No. 241369 , June 3, 2019
Sasha M. Cabrera, Petitioner, vs. The Philippine Statistics Authority (formerly National Statistics Office), Office of the Consul General, Philippine Embassy, Kuala Lumpur, and the Office of the Solicitor General, Respondents

FACTS

Petitioner Sasha M. Cabrera was born on July 20, 1989, in Malaysia. Her birth was reported to the Philippine Embassy in Kuala Lumpur on August 27, 2008, and the resulting first Report of Birth was received by the National Statistics Office (now PSA) on January 29, 2009, but it erroneously recorded her year of birth as 1980. Instead of seeking a correction, her mother registered a second Report of Birth in March 2010, creating a duplicate record. Due to difficulties arising from having two birth records, petitioner filed a petition for cancellation of the first Report of Birth before the RTC of Davao City, Branch 17 (RTC-Br. 17). The RTC-Br. 17 granted the petition in a Decision dated November 19, 2012. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which reversed the RTC-Br. 17 decision. The CA held that since the birth was already validly registered, a second registration was impermissible, and the proper remedy for the substantial correction (year of birth) was a petition under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. Instead of seeking reconsideration from the CA, petitioner re-filed a new petition before the RTC of Davao City, Branch 14 (RTC-Br. 14), this time under Rule 108, seeking to: (a) correct her year of birth from 1980 to 1989 in the first Report of Birth, and (b) cancel the second Report of Birth. The RTC-Br. 14, citing Section 1 of Rule 108, motu proprio dismissed the petition on grounds of improper venue. It ruled that since the Office of the Consul General in Kuala Lumpur acted as the civil registry, the petition should have been filed in the RTC of the place where the PSA (where the record was registered) is located, i.e., Quezon City, not Davao City. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Whether or not the Regional Trial Court, Branch 14, erred in dismissing the re-filed petition on the ground of improper venue.

RULING

Yes, the RTC-Br. 14 erred. The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed and set aside the RTC-Br. 14’s Orders, and reinstated and remanded the case to the RTC-Br. 14 for further proceedings.
The Court ruled that venue is procedural, not jurisdictional, and therefore may be waived. Objections to venue must be raised at the earliest opportunity, either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer; otherwise, they are deemed waived. A court cannot motu proprio dismiss a case on the ground of improper venue. The rules on venue are designed for the convenience of the parties and do not affect the court’s jurisdiction over the subject matter.
In this case, the RTC-Br. 14’s motu proprio dismissal was erroneous. First, during the prior proceedings before RTC-Br. 17, petitioner had pleaded exemption from the venue rule due to her status as a student with limited means, filing in her domicile (Davao City). The OSG did not object to this venue at that time. Second, convenience favored Davao City as it was petitioner’s residence and the PSA maintained a field office there. Third, following precedent, such as Radiowealth Finance Company, Inc. v. Nolasco, unless a defendant objects, a technically improper venue may be acceptable to the parties, and a trial court cannot pre-empt this prerogative by dismissing the case on its own motion. Therefore, the RTC-Br. 14 should have taken cognizance of the petition.