G.R. No. 203217 - Diaz vs. Office of the Ombudsman

Virgilio C. Briones (Briones) is the registered owner of a parcel of land covered by TCT No. 160689 (subject property). On July 15, 2010, he learned his property had been foreclosed and a writ of possession issued in favor of Cash Asia Credit Corporation (Cash Asia).
Briones discovered purportedly executed contracts dated December 6, 2007—a promissory note, a loan agreement, and a deed of real estate mortgage—securing a ₱3,500,000 loan from Cash Asia, which he alleged were forgeries as he had been residing and working in Vietnam since October 31, 2007 and returned only briefly for the holidays.

On August 2, 2010, Briones filed before the RTC of Manila (Branch 173) a Complaint for nullity of the mortgage, promissory note, loan agreement, foreclosure, cancellation of TCT No. 290846, and damages.
Cash Asia moved to dismiss (Aug. 25, 2010) for improper venue, invoking an exclusive venue stipulation in the contracts providing that all actions “shall only be brought in or submitted to the jurisdiction of the proper court of Makati City.” Briones opposed, contending he was not a party to the contracts and asserting forgery.
The RTC denied Cash Asia’s motion to dismiss in Orders dated September 20 and October 22, 2010. Cash Asia petitioned for certiorari to the Court of Appeals (CA).
In a Decision (Mar. 5, 2012), the CA annulled the RTC orders and dismissed Briones’s complaint without prejudice to refiling in Makati. The CA denied reconsideration in its October 4, 2012 Resolution. Briones then filed this petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court.

Whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in dismissing Briones’s complaint on the ground of improper venue, despite his direct attack on the validity of the contracts containing the exclusive Makati venue stipulation.