Scribd
Upload
194 views1 page

Union Bank vs. Maunlad Homes Venue Ruling

Union Bank entered into a contract to sell a property with Maunlad Homes. Maunlad Homes failed to pay installments and Union Bank sent notices to rescind the contract. Union Bank filed an ejectment suit against Maunlad Homes in Makati City, even though the property was located in Bulacan. Maunlad Homes argued the suit should have been filed in Bulacan under the Rules of Court, but the contract stipulated suits would be filed in Makati City. The Supreme Court ruled the Makati court was the proper venue as the parties had validly agreed to that venue in their contract before the case was filed.

Uploaded by

Shimi Fortuna
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
194 views1 page

Union Bank vs. Maunlad Homes Venue Ruling

Union Bank entered into a contract to sell a property with Maunlad Homes. Maunlad Homes failed to pay installments and Union Bank sent notices to rescind the contract. Union Bank filed an ejectment suit against Maunlad Homes in Makati City, even though the property was located in Bulacan. Maunlad Homes argued the suit should have been filed in Bulacan under the Rules of Court, but the contract stipulated suits would be filed in Makati City. The Supreme Court ruled the Makati court was the proper venue as the parties had validly agreed to that venue in their contract before the case was filed.

Uploaded by

Shimi Fortuna
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
  • Union Bank vs Maunlad Homes Case Summary

UNION BANK vs MAUNLAD HOMES

GR No. 190071 | August 15, 2012


SECOND DIVISION
BRION,J.

FACTS
Unionbank entered into a Contract to Sell with
Maunlad Homes over the Maunlad Shopping Mall in
Bulacan. Unionbank allowed Maunlad Homes to take
possession of the property.

Eventually, Maunlad Homes failed to pay the monthly


installments. Unionbank sent a notice of rescission and
demand letters but all were unheeded. This led to
Unionbank to file an ejectment suit against Maunlad
Homes.

Maunlad Homes questioned the venue of Union Bank’s


unlawful detainer action which was filed in Makati City
while the contested property is located in Malolos,
Bulacan. Citing Section 1, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court,
Maunlad Homes claimed that the unlawful detainer
action should have been filed with the municipal trial
court of the municipality or city where the real property
involved is situated.

Union Bank, on the other hand, justified the filing of the


complaint with the MeTC of Makati City on the venue
stipulation in the contract which states that “the venue
of all suits and actions arising out of or in
connection with this Contract to Sell shall be at
Makati City.”

ISSUE:
Whether or not the MeTC of Makati was the proper
venue of the action filed by Unionbank?

RULING: YES

While Section 1, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court states


that ejectment actions shall be filed in “the municipal
trial court of the municipality or city wherein the real
property involved x x x is situated,” Section 4 of the
same Rule provides that the rule shall not apply
“where the parties have validly agreed in writing before
the filing of the action on the exclusive venue thereof.”

Precisely, in this case, the parties provided for a


different venue. In Villanueva v. Judge Mosqueda, the
Court upheld the validity of a stipulation in a contract
providing for a venue for ejectment actions other than
that stated in the Rules of Court. Since the unlawful
detainer action is connected with the contract, Union
Bank rightfully filed the complaint with the MeTC of
Makati City.

You might also like