VIRGILIO C. BRIONES v.

CA the case in Manila where the subject property is, and CA

committed grave abuse of outright dismissal of his case.
FACTS: Virgilio Briones filed a complaint for Nullity of Mortgage
Contract, Promissory Note, Loan Agreement, Foreclosure of
Mortgage, Cancellation of TCT and Damages against Cash Asia.
Briones’ property was foreclosed and a writ of possession was
issued to Cash Asia. He discovered that he purportedly executed a
promissory note, loan agreement, and deed of real estate
mortgage to Cash Asia, with a venue stipulation that all legal
actions arising out of this notice in connection with the REM shall
be brought in or submitted only to the jurisdiction of proper
courts of Makati. Briones assails the validity of the contracts
signed, saying it was forged. RTC denied Cash Asia’s motion to
dismiss due to lack of merit, because Briones’ cause of action was
not heard. CA dismissed Briones’ complaint and that the case must
be heard in courts of proper jurisdiction in Makati, as per the
contract.
ISSUE: W/N CA gravely abused its discretion in ordering the
outright dismissal of Briones’s complaint due to improper venue
HELD: YES. Written stipulations as to the venue may be restrictive
in the sense that the suit may be filed only in the place agreed
upon, or merely permissive in that the parties may file their suit
not only in the place agreed upon but also in places fixed by law.
Such stipulation must be shown to be exclusive or directive, and
absence of qualifying and restrictive words, should make the
stipulation deemed as merely an agreement on an additional
forum and not as limiting venue. In the case, although stipulated
that the case must be heard in proper courts in Makati, however,
Briones’s complaint assails the validity of the subject contracts,
claiming fraud, so he cannot be expected to comply with the
venue, as it would be an implicit recognition of the contract’s
validity. Therefore, Briones properly filed its complaint on filing