Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SPECIAL PROCEEDING
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
MANILA C64
RIERA VS PALMACOLI
ISSUE:
Whether or not trial court motu proprio dismiss a complaint on the ground
of improper venue.
Venue of real actions
The dismissal of petitioners complaint by respondent trial court on the
ground of improper venue is plain error, obviously attributable to its inability
to distinguish between jurisdiction and venue.
Questions or issues relating to venue of actions are basically governed by
Rule 4 of the Revised Rules of Court. Jurisdiction over the subject matter or
nature of an action is conferred only by law. It may not be conferred by
consent or waiver upon a court which otherwise would have no jurisdiction
over the subject matter of an action. On the other hand, the venue of an
action as fixed by statute may be changed by the consent of the parties,
and an objection on improper venue may be waived by the failure of the
defendant to raise it at the proper time. In such an event, the court may still
render a valid judgment. Rules as to jurisdiction can never be left to the
consent or agreement of the parties. Venue is procedural, not
jurisdictional, and hence may be waived. It is meant to provide
convenience to the parties, rather than restrict their access to the courts as
it relates to the place of trial.
Dismissing the complaint on the ground of improper venue is certainly not
the appropriate course of action at this stage of the proceedings. Where
the defendant fails to challenge timely the venue in a motion to dismiss as
provided by Section 4 of Rule 4 of the Rules of Court, and allows the trial to
be held and a decision to be rendered, he cannot on appeal or in a special
action be permitted to belatedly challenge the wrong venue, which is
deemed waived. Indeed, it was grossly erroneous for the trial court to have
taken a procedural short-cut by dismissing motu proprio the complaint on
the ground of improper venue without first allowing the procedure outlined
in the rules of court to take its proper course.
Riera v. Palmaroli
40 Phil. 105 (1919)
G.R. No. 14851, September 13, 1919
Facts:
A Spanish citizen, Juan Pons was a Spanis died in Manila. Juan was then
married to Antonia Rierra who, at the time of Pons death, was residing in
Spai. The Spanish Consul General in the Philippines produced a will and
asked that it be admitted to probate. Such will deprived Rierra of her
inheritance. Due to the distance of Manila from where Rierra resided in
spain coupled by the European War, the widow did not have any news until
sometime later. When she found out, she opposed the petition for probate
however this was denied on the ground that more than 6 months has
elapsed since the order of the court. The will deprives the widow
opportunity to oppose the probate and she alleges that the formalities
required by law were not complied with hence the case at bar.
Issue/Held:
Whether or not a rehearing can be ordered it being alleged that the widow
was prevented from participating in the probate of the will and that will was
not executed in the formalities required by law? NO.
Ratio/Critique:
A petition filed under section 513 of the code of Civil Procedure to set aside
a judgment and obtain a new trial in CFI will not be entertained by the
supreme court, where the former court can still grant relief upon the same
state of facts under section 113. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
depends upon the lack of remedy in the CFI. When, however, the CFI has,
by the expiration of six months, lost the power to
relieve from its own judgment under section 113, the remedy conceded by
section 513 to the Supreme Court may be resorted to, under the conditions
stated in that section; and apart from the restriction that the petition shall be
filed within sixty days after the party aggrieved first learns of the rendition of
the judgment, there is no positive limitation as to the time within which the
petition may be filed in the Supreme Court.
The SC may have the power to set aside any judgment, order or
proceeding under Sec. 113 however under Sec. 513 this power is limited to
granting a new trial upon judgments rendered upon default. The default
intended here can only arise in contentious litigations where a party has
been impleaded as a defendant and served with process but fails to appear
or to answer.
The proceeding to probate a will is NOT a contentious litigation because
nobody is impleaded or served with process. It is a special proceeding, and
although notice of the application is published, nobody is bound to appear
and no order for judgment by default is ever entered. Hence, Sec 513 has
no application to the case at bar involving the probate of a will.
The probate of a will, while conclusive as to its due execution, in no way
involves the intrinsic validity of its provisions. In the case at bar, if it should
appear later upon the distribution of the estate of Juan Pons that any
provision in the will is contrary to law then the law will prevail. The widow
can then go to court at the proper juncture and discuss