Lantin v Lantion (2006) (venue) EMERGENCY RECIT: The Lantins borrowed money (both in peso and dollar) from

the Planters Development Bank and executed a real estate mortgage for their properties. They were not able to pay their loans so PDB foreclosed on the properties to partially satisfy the debt. The Lantins filed a complaint in Batangas to annul the foreclosure stating that the REM only covered their peso loans which they had fully paid already. PDB filed a motion to dismiss due to improper venue since in their agreement, any suit arising from the agreement should be filed in Makati. Judge Lantion dismissed the complaint and the Lantins appealed. The Court held that under Sec. 4(b) of the Rules on Civil Procedure, the rules on venue will not apply when the parties stipulate the venue to the exclusion of other possible venues. Here, the agreement between PDB and the Lantins explicitly stated that all suits arising from the agreement shall be filed exclusively in the proper Makati courts. Thus, the dismissal of the complaint by Judge Lantion was valid. FACTS: Spouses Lantin took several dollar and peso loans from Planters Development Bank (PDB) and executed mortgages and promissory notes to cover the loans. The Lantins defaulted on their loans so PDB foreclosed on the properties to partially satisfy the Lantins debt. Subsequently, the Lantins filed a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity and/or Annulment of Sale and/or Mortgage, Reconveyance, Discharge of Mortgage, Accounting, Permanent Injunction, and Damages with the RTC of Lipa City, Batangas against PDB. According to the Lantins, the REM only covered the peso loans which they have already paid off, and not the dollar loans. PDB filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of improper venue since according to their agreement the venue of any suit should be Metro Manila. Judge (Jane Aurora) Lantion dismissed the complaint because of improper venue. Lantins asked for a reconsideration which was denied. Lantins claim that since they are assailing the validity of the loan documents, then the stipulation stating that Metro Manila should be the venue of any suit is also in question. They also argue that the venue stipulated in the agreement is not the exclusive venue stipulation covered by Section 4(b) of the Rules on Civil Procedure. ISSUE: Whether the stipulation on the loan agreement is an exclusive venue stipulation under Sec. 4(b) of the Rules HELD: Yes. WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The assailed orders dated May 15, 2003 and September 15, 2003 of the Regional Trial Court of Lipa City, Batangas, in Civil Case No. 2002-0555 are AFFIRMED. RATIO: Under Section 4 (b) of Rule 4 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the general rules on venue of actions shall not apply where the parties, before the filing of the action, have validly agreed in writing on an exclusive venue. The mere stipulation on the venue of an action, however, is not enough to preclude parties from bringing a case in other venues. The parties must be able to show that such stipulation is exclusive. In the absence of qualifying or restrictive words, the

stipulation should be deemed as merely an agreement on an additional forum, not as limiting venue to the specified place. Under the agreement, it is clear that the Lantins and PDB agreed that any suit arising from the contract should be brought exclusively in the proper Makati court (or to any court that PDB wants to), as the Lantins had waived the right to choose the venue of the action. The Lantins only assailed of the coverage of the loan agreement and the validity of the loan agreement itself. since the issues of whether the mortgages should be properly discharged and whether these also cover the dollar loans, arose out of the said loan documents, the stipulation on venue is also applicable thereto. NOTE: Lantins also raised the following arguments re: venue: (1) the rule on venue of action was established for the convenience of the Lantins, and (2) since the complaint involves several causes of action which did not arise solely from or connected with the loan documents, the cited venue stipulation should not be made to apply. The agreement between the Lantins and PDB states that: [i]n the event of suit arising out of or in connection with this mortgage and/or the promissory note/s secured by this mortgage, the parties hereto agree to bring their causes of auction (sic) exclusively

in the proper court of Makati, Metro Manila or at such other venue chosen by the Mortgagee, the Mortgagor
waiving for this purpose any other venue.

I/We further submit that the venue of any legal action

arising out of this note shall exclusively be at the proper court of Metropolitan Manila, Philippines or any other venue chosen by the BANK, waiving for this purpose
any other venue provided by the Rules of Court.