Briones vs.

Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 204444
January 14, 2015

Facts:

Briones is the owner of a property covered by TCT No. 160689 (subject property). Later,
his sister informed him that his property had been foreclosed and a writ of possession had already
been issued in favor of Cash Asia. Upon investigation, Briones discovered that he purportedly
executed a promissory note, loan agreement, and deed of real estate mortgage covering the subject
property in favor of Cash Asia in order to obtain a loan in the amount of P3,500,000.00 from the
latter. In this relation, Briones initiated a complaint in the RTC of Manila praying that the subject
documents be declared null and void.

Cash Asia filed a Motion to Dismiss praying for the outright dismissal of Briones’
complaint on the ground of improper venue on the basis of a stipulation in both documents
designating Makati City as the exclusive venue in the event of litigation between the parties arising
out of the loan and mortgage.

Issue:

Whether or not the motion to dismiss of Cash Asia should be granted

Ruling:

No. A complaint directly assailing the validity of the written instrument itself should not
be bound by the exclusive venue stipulation contained therein and should be filed in accordance
with the general rules on venue. To be sure, it would be inherently consistent for a complaint of
this nature to recognize the exclusive venue stipulation when it, in fact, precisely assails the
validity of the instrument in which such stipulation is contained.

In this case, the venue stipulation found in the subject contracts is indeed restrictive in
nature, considering that it effectively limits the venue of the actions arising therefrom to the courts
of Makati City. However, it must be emphasized that Briones’ complaint directly assails the
validity of the subject contracts, claiming forgery in their execution. Given this circumstance,
Briones cannot be expected to comply with the aforesaid venue stipulation, as his compliance
therewith would mean an implicit recognition of their validity. Hence, pursuant to the general rules
on venue, Briones properly filed his complaint before a court in the City of Manila where the
subject property is located.

Rules on Pleadings

Pinga vs. Heirs of Santiago

 G.R. No. 170354
June 30, 2006

Facts:

The Heirs of Santiago (Santiagos) filed an injunction against Pinga alleging that Pinga had
been unlawfully entering the coco lands of Santiagos cutting wood and bamboos and harvesting
the fruits of the coconut trees. As a counterclaim, Pinga contests the ownership of the lands to
which Pinga was harvesting the fruits and prays that owing to Santiagos’ forcible re-entry in the
properties and the irresponsible and reckless filing of the case, they be awarded various types of
damages.
However, due to failures of Heirs of Santiago to attend the hearings, the court ordered the
dismissal of said case and allowed Pinga “to present their evidence ex parte.” Santiagos thus filed
a Motion for Reconsideration not to reinstate the case but to ask for the entire action to be dismissed
and not to allow petitioner to present evidence ex parte. They contend that since the case was
already dismissed, counterclaim could not remain pending for independent adjudication.

Issue:

Whether the dismissal of the complaint necessarily carries the dismissal of the compulsory
counterclaim.

Ruling:

No. under Section 3, Rule 17 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the dismissal of the
complaint due to the fault of plaintiff does not necessarily carry with it the dismissal of the
counterclaim, compulsory or otherwise. In fact, the dismissal of the complaint is without prejudice
to the right of defendants to prosecute the counterclaim.

Amante vs. Suñga

G.R. No. L-40491
May 28, 1975
Facts:

Amante, as defendant in the case Vigaan Agricultural Development Corporation vs. Segundo
Amante, filed a written motion with the trial court requesting for an extension of fifteen (15) days
from December 9, 1974, within which to file his answer. The t