Case Digest (G.R. No. 165910)
Facts:
In LUCILLE B. ODILAO vs. UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES (G.R. No. 254787, April 26, 2023), petitioner Lucille B. Odilao, represented by her son Ariel B. Odilao, executed a loan evidenced by a promissory note and secured by a real estate mortgage in favor of respondent Union Bank of the Philippines. When petitioner defaulted, the bank foreclosed. Petitioner then filed before Branch 17 of the Regional Trial Court of Davao City Civil Case No. R-DVO-16-01024-CV a Complaint for reformation of mortgage, nullity of foreclosure, damages, and attorney’s fees with a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, arguing the agreements were contracts of adhesion requiring reformation to reflect true mutual intention. Respondent bank moved to dismiss for improperly laid venue under Section 1(c), Rule 16 of the Rules of Court, citing stipulations in the loan documents that any action must be in Pasig City or Metro Manila. On August 30, 2016, the trial court granted the motion, dismisCase Digest (G.R. No. 165910)
Facts:
- Parties and Nature of the Action
- Petitioner Lucille B. Odilao, represented by her son Ariel B. Odilao, filed a complaint for:
- Reformation of mortgage agreements
- Nullity of foreclosure
- Damages and attorney’s fees
- Temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction
- Respondents are Union Bank of the Philippines (mortgagee) and Atty. Natasha M. Go-De Mesa (Register of Deeds of Davao City).
- Contractual Provisions and Alleged Adhesion
- Petitioner and her husband executed a Promissory Note and a Real Estate Mortgage in favor of Union Bank.
- Petitioner alleged these were contracts of adhesion and sought reformation to reflect true mutual intention, specifically requesting:
- Procedural History
- Union Bank moved to dismiss on ground of improperly laid venue, citing stipulations placing venue in Pasig City (promissory note) or at bank’s option in Pasig City or where the property is located (mortgage).
- RTC Branch 17, Davao City (Aug. 30, 2016) granted the motion and dismissed the complaint for improper venue; denied reconsideration (Dec. 28, 2016).
- Court of Appeals Cagayan de Oro City Station (July 17, 2019 decision; Oct. 9, 2020 resolution) affirmed the dismissal and denied petitioner’s motions for reconsideration.
- Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court via Petition for Review on Certiorari, arguing the venue stipulation should not bind a party assailing the contract and that exclusive-option stipulations are void.
Issues:
- Whether the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of improperly laid venue was correct.
- Whether a restrictive venue stipulation in a mortgage binds a mortgagor who files a reformation suit without first obtaining the mortgagee’s designation of forum.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)