Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 79 views

    Villanueva Vs Mosqueda Digest

    Uploaded by

    Jenny Mary Dagun
    This case discusses whether venue can be stipulated by agreement between parties in a contract. The Supreme Court ruled that venue can be stipulated by written agreement according to the Rules of Court. Specifically: - The case involved an ejectment suit filed in Masantol municipal court by the lessor against the lessee, based on a lease agreement stipulating suits could be filed in Masantol if the lessee violated the contract. - The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' rulings, finding the stipulation in the lease agreement was a valid waiver of the legal venue by the parties. - The Rules of Court allow venue to be changed or transferred between provinces by written agreement of the parties. Therefore

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Villanueva Vs Mosqueda Digest

    Uploaded by

    Jenny Mary Dagun
    79 views1 page
    This case discusses whether venue can be stipulated by agreement between parties in a contract. The Supreme Court ruled that venue can be stipulated by written agreement according to the Rules of Court. Specifically: - The case involved an ejectment suit filed in Masantol municipal court by the lessor against the lessee, based on a lease agreement stipulating suits could be filed in Masantol if the lessee violated the contract. - The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' rulings, finding the stipulation in the lease agreement was a valid waiver of the legal venue by the parties. - The Rules of Court allow venue to be changed or transferred between provinces by written agreement of the parties. Therefore

    Original Title

    Villanueva-vs-Mosqueda-digest.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case discusses whether venue can be stipulated by agreement between parties in a contract. The Supreme Court ruled that venue can be stipulated by written agreement according to the Rules of Court. Specifically: - The case involved an ejectment suit filed in Masantol municipal court by the lessor against the lessee, based on a lease agreement stipulating suits could be filed in Masantol if the lessee violated the contract. - The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' rulings, finding the stipulation in the lease agreement was a valid waiver of the legal venue by the parties. - The Rules of Court allow venue to be changed or transferred between provinces by written agreement of the parties. Therefore

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    79 views1 page

    Villanueva Vs Mosqueda Digest

    Uploaded by

    Jenny Mary Dagun
    This case discusses whether venue can be stipulated by agreement between parties in a contract. The Supreme Court ruled that venue can be stipulated by written agreement according to the Rules of Court. Specifically: - The case involved an ejectment suit filed in Masantol municipal court by the lessor against the lessee, based on a lease agreement stipulating suits could be filed in Masantol if the lessee violated the contract. - The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' rulings, finding the stipulation in the lease agreement was a valid waiver of the legal venue by the parties. - The Rules of Court allow venue to be changed or transferred between provinces by written agreement of the parties. Therefore

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Villanueva vs Mosqueda (Short case)

    Date: August 19, 1982


    Ponente: Aquino
    Doctrine:
    Venue of an action may be changed or transferred from one province to another, by written
    agreement of the parties.

    Facts:
    Case about the venue of an ejectment Suit
    There was a supplementary lease agreement, executed on August 19, 1970 between
    Basilio Bonifacio (Lessor) and Eduardo Villanueva (Lessee) regarding Bonifacios
    house in Tondo Manila
    Stipulated: If lessor violates the contract, he can be sued in Manila. If lessee violates
    the contract, he can be sued in Masantol, Pampanga
    Lessor resides in Masantol while the Lessee resides in Tondo, Manila
    Ejectment suit filed by Bonifacio against Villanueva in the Municipal Court of
    Masantol.
    Villanueva Motion to Dismiss on lack of jurisdiction
    Villanueva Venue of the action is manila where the property is located. Stipulation
    that the action can be filed in Masantol is void for being contrary to section 2(a), Rule
    4 of the Rules of Court
    Motion to dismiss was denied by the Municipal Court.
    Certiorari filled by Villanueva in CFI of Pampanga. CFI dismissed the petition
    o Venue was properly laid in masantol, pursuant to the agreement of the parties
    who had validly waived the legal venue.
    Villanueva Certiorari to the SC

    Issue:
    W/N venue can be laid out as a stipulation to a contract? YES
    Ruling:
    SC: Petition has no merit. Municipal Court of Masantol, like other inferior courts, has
    exclusice original jurisdiction to entertain ejectment suits
    Section 1(a) of Rule 4: Forcible entry and detainer actions regarding real property
    shall be brought in the municipality or city which the subject matter thereof is
    situated
    o This doesnt refer to the jurisdiction over the subject matter but only to the
    place where the ejectment suit may be brought
    Section 3, Rule 4: by written agreement of the parties the venue of an
    action may be changed or transferred from one province to another.
    o Such an agreement was formalized by the lessor and lessee.
    Agreement is valid, binding and enforceable.
    Case is distinguished from a cse where the parties stipulated that actions on a
    construction contract can be instituted at CFI of Naga City. In that case, the
    Contractor, a resident of Bacolor Pampanga sued him in the CFI of Pampanga instead
    of Naga
    o It was held in that case that the suit was properly filed in Pampanga because
    the agreement of the parties for the venue of the actions was simply
    permissive
    Disposition:
    Petition is dismissed, lower court decision is affirmed

    You might also like