Case Digest (G.R. No. 254787)
Facts:
Lucille B. Odilao v. Union Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. 254787, April 26, 2023, the Supreme Court Third Division, Dimaampao, J., writing for the Court. The petition sought review of a Court of Appeals Cagayan de Oro City Station Decision dated July 17, 2019 and Resolution dated October 9, 2020 in CA‑G.R. CV No. 04749‑MIN, which affirmed the dismissal by Branch 17 of the Regional Trial Court of Davao City of petitioner’s complaint.Petitioner Lucille B. Odilao, through her son Ariel B. Odilao as her representative, filed a Complaint (Civil Case No. R‑DVO‑16‑01024‑CV) before Branch 77 of the Regional Trial Court of Davao City seeking reformation of mortgage, nullity of foreclosure, damages, and attorney’s fees, with temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. The complaint alleged that the loan and mortgage documents executed in favor of Union Bank of the Philippines were contracts of adhesion that did not reflect the true mutual intention of the parties and requested various reforms (e.g., fair notice requirements, limitations on automatic escalation and penalties, reduction of interest to market or legal rates, re‑computation of amortization, and annulment of specific venue provisions).
Respondent bank moved to dismiss on the ground of improperly laid venue, pointing to contractual venue stipulations that designated the courts of Pasig City as the forum. In an Order dated August 30, 2016, the RTC granted the motion and dismissed the complaint, construing the mortgage’s clause — which provided the venue of actions “shall be Pasig City or in the place where any of the Mortgaged properties are located, at the absolute option of the Mortgagee” — as requiring an express manifestation by the mortgagee before the case could be heard in Davao City. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the trial court in an Order dated December 28, 2016.
Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, which in a July 17, 2019 Decision (authored by Associate Justice Camello) affirmed the dismissal; its October 9, 2020 Resolution denied reconsideration. Petitioner then filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court b...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the dismissal of petitioner’s complaint for improperly laid venue proper—i.e., did the mortgage’s venue stipulation preclude filing in Davao City where the mortgaged property is located?
- When a mortgagor seeks reformation of a mortgage as a contract of adhesion (but does not deny the instrument’s authenticity), does a restrictive venue clause granting the mortgagee an “absolute option” to choose venue bar the mortgagor from filing in the place ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)