G.R. No. L-27632. March 27, 1971.
MIGUEL OCAMPO, petitioner, vs. LIBERATO S. DOMINGO, VICENTE GALANG, CITY JUDGE OF DAVAO CITY AND ATTY. ALFREDO ABEJA, CHIEF DEPUTY SHERIFF OF QUEZON CITY, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Miguel Ocampo filed an original action for prohibition to enjoin the enforcement of a writ of execution issued by the City Court of Davao City. The writ implemented a final judgment in an illegal detainer case filed by respondent Liberato S. Domingo, ordering Ocampo to vacate a leased parcel of land in Quezon City and pay unpaid rentals. Ocampo alleged he was never served summons or a copy of the complaint and decision, and that venue was improperly laid in Davao City since the property is located in Quezon City. Based on these verified allegations, the Supreme Court issued a restraining order.
The respondents’ answer, supported by documentary evidence, completely disproved Ocampo’s claims. The Quezon City sheriff had personally served the summons and complaint on Ocampo, who subsequently filed an answer pleading no intentional refusal to pay rent. The notarized lease agreement contained a stipulation that “venue in case of litigation shall be in Davao City.” Ocampo failed to appear at the hearing, and a copy of the decision was duly served on and acknowledged by him. Furthermore, when the writ of execution was served, Ocampo requested deferment and promised in writing to vacate and pay by a specific date.

ISSUE

Whether the petition for prohibition should be granted to nullify the writ of execution based on alleged lack of jurisdiction due to improper venue and lack of service of process.

RULING

The petition is dismissed. The defense of improper venue was waived. While Rule 4, Section 1 of the Rules of Court provides that forcible entry and detainer actions shall be brought where the property is situated, venue in inferior courts may be waived expressly or impliedly. A defendant who fails to challenge venue timely in a motion to dismiss and participates in the proceedings is deemed to have waived it and cannot belatedly raise the objection on appeal or in a special action. Here, Ocampo impliedly waived any objection to venue by filing his answer without raising the issue and by his subsequent conduct, including his written promise to comply with the judgment. The contractual stipulation on Davao City venue further supports the propriety of the chosen forum. Moreover, his factual allegations of non-service were conclusively refuted by the record. The Court condemned the filing of a sham petition based on false representations, which delayed execution and wasted judicial time, and required Ocampo and his counsel to show cause why they should not be punished for contempt and disciplined, respectively. The restraining order was dissolved.