Lex Rex Ph

Briones vs. CA

Remedial Law: Plaintiff not expected to comply with the stipulation of venue on the agreement if he sails the validity of the latter. Compliance therewith means implicit recognition of its validity.

G.R. No. 204444, 14 January 2015

Facts

Briones is the owner of subject property in Manila (TCT No. 160689). In 2010, he was informed that the subject property was foreclosed. He discovered that he purportedly executed a loan agreement et al with Cash Asia. He claims he never did contract such loan, and that his signature was forged.

Briones filed with RTC Manila a case of Nullity of Mortgage Contract against Cash Asia.

Cash Asia prayed to dismiss his complaint on the ground of improper venue. Its basis is the stipulation of the subject contracts.

Briones’s response: “he should not be covered by that stipulation because he was never a party therein.” Reiterated that his signatures on the said contracts were forgeries.

RTC favored Briones. CA favored Cash Asia.

Issue

Will the exclusive stipulation on venue in the contract be enforced when the complaint assails the validity of the agreement?

Ruling

No.

Briones assails the validity of the subject contracts, claiming forgery in their execution. Given this circumstance, Briones cannot be expected to complywith the aforesaid venue stipulation, as his compliance therewith would mean an implicit recognition of their validity. Hence, pursuant to Section 1. of Rule 4, Briones properly filed his complaint before RTC Manila where the subject property is located.

Other Content You May Be Interested In:

Sibal v. Valdez Digest

“Mobilization by Anticipation” G.R. No. L-26278, August 4, 1927Leon Sibal plaintiff-appellant v. Emiliano Valdez et al, defendant appellee Facts (P) Leon Sibal attached his crops

Read More »

Adoption

The primary legal source for domestic adoption in the Philippines is RA 8552. Its short name is Domestic Adoption Act of 1998 and its complete

Read More »

Criminal Negligence

Imprudence is an act of carelessness (reckless imprudence) which, had it been intentional, would otherwise constitute a felony (Article 365 of RPC): If grave felony:

Read More »
en_USEnglish