GR 39581; (March, 1976) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-39581 March 31, 1976
Carlos Eusebio, petitioner, vs. Mercedes B. Eusebio and Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Quezon City, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Carlos Eusebio filed a petition for judicial authorization to sell conjugal properties before the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Quezon City. The properties subject of the petition are located in Quezon City. Before private respondent Mercedes Eusebio could even be served with summons, the respondent court, acting motu proprio, issued an order dismissing the case. The court reasoned that neither the petitioner nor the respondent was a resident of Quezon City, and therefore, the court had no jurisdiction over them. The petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was subsequently denied.
ISSUE
Did the respondent court commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in dismissing the petition motu proprio on the ground that the parties were non-residents of Quezon City?
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court nullified the respondent court’s orders, finding grave abuse of discretion. The Court clarified the fundamental distinctions between jurisdiction and venue. Jurisdiction over the subject matter was unquestionably vested in the respondent court by Republic Act No. 4836, which grants it exclusive original jurisdiction over proceedings under Title 6 of the Civil Code, including petitions for judicial authorization to sell conjugal property under Article 116. Jurisdiction over the petitioner was acquired upon the filing of the petition.
The residence of the parties pertains to venue, not jurisdiction. Venue is a procedural matter relating to the geographical location where a case may be conveniently heard. For actions affecting title to real property, such as this petition for authority to sell, Rule 4, Section 2 of the Revised Rules of Court mandates that venue is properly laid where the property, or a portion thereof, is situated. Since the conjugal properties are in Quezon City, venue was correctly laid there. Objections to venue are generally waivable and do not affect the court’s fundamental authority to adjudicate the case. The respondent court’s dismissal conflated venue with jurisdiction, a clear error. The case was reinstated and the respondent court was ordered to proceed with the proceedings in accordance with law.