G.R. No. L-3271 - Ricafrente vs. Cabrera

On November 6, 1948, a vehicular collision occurred between a jeep station wagon and a car.
The collision took place between Tagaytay City and Batangas.
The incident resulted in an alleged damage to Tolentino’s car in the amount of P962.63.

Miguel Tolentino instituted an action in the Municipal Court of Manila to recover the damage amounting to P962.63.
Petitioners, being defendants in the civil case, filed a motion to dismiss the case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of Judge Cabrera.
Their argument was based on the fact that Tolentino, the plaintiff, was a resident of Manila while the petitioners resided in Cavite City.

Tolentino, in his answer to the petition, claimed that a verbal agreement was reached in the City of Manila whereby the petitioners were bound to pay for the damage suffered.
Based on this alleged verbal agreement, Tolentino argued that the suit was properly brought in Manila pursuant to Section 2, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court.
The petitioners contended that the proper venue should be determined by residence or place of execution for actions not based on a written agreement.

Whether the Municipal Court of Manila is the proper venue for the civil case given that the petitioners (defendants) are residents of Cavite City and the plaintiff is a resident of Manila.

Whether a verbal agreement, as alleged by Tolentino, is sufficient to alter the default venue provision under Section 2, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court.
Whether the rules of venue in inferior courts allow for deviations from the standard rules when the agreement is not in writing.

Whether the action for recovery of damages arising from a vehicular collision (a tort or quasi-contractual relationship) should strictly follow the rule mandating venue where the defendants reside in the absence of a written agreement.