QUIRINO RICAFRENTE AND FORTUNATO TIANGCO, PETITIONERS, VS. GUILLERMO CABRERA, MUNICIPAL JUDGE, BRANCH II, CITY OF MANILA, AND MIGUEL TOLENTINO, RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition to prohibit Judge Guillermo Cabrera of the
Municipal Court of Manila from compelling the petitioner to go into
trial in Civil Case No. 6883.

Petitioner Quirino Ricafrente was the owner of a jeep station wagon
driven by petitioner Fortunate Tiangco, and respondent Miguel Tolentino
was the owner of a car. On November 6, 1948, the two vehicles collided
between Tagaytay City and Batangas resulting in the alleged damage to
Tolentino’s car in the amount of P962.63. Action by.Tolentino to
recover this amount was instituted in the Municipal Court of Manila and
the petitioners, defendants in the civil case, filed a motion to
dismiss, alleging lack of -jurisdiction of the respondent Judge to try
the suit for the reason that the plaintiff was a resident of Manila and
the defendants of Cavite City. The motion was denied, hence this
petition.

Tolentino, answering the present petition alleges that there was a verbal agreement, which he sets out in his complaint, entered
into in the City of Manila whereby the petitioners, defendants in the
civil case, bound themselves to pay the damage suffered by him
(Tolentino), and he maintains from this that/ the suit was properly
brought in that city, citing Section 2,. Rule 4, of the Rules of Court.

The Rule relied ujson reads:

“Sec. 2. Venue in inferior courts.

*           *           *           *           *           *           *

“All other civil actions in inferior courts shall be brought:

“(a)
In the.place specified by the parties by means of a written agreement,
whenever the court shall have jurisdiction to try the action by reason
of its nature or the amount involved;

“(b) If there is no such agreement, in the place of the execution of the contract sued upon as appears therefrom;

“(c)
When the place of execution of the written contract sued upon does not
appear therein, or the action is not upon a written contract, them in
the municipality where the defendant or any of the defendants resides
or may be served with summons.”

A close reading of the foregoing Rule will show that verbal
agreements do not come within the exceptions to the requirement? that
actions shall be brought in the municipality where the defendant or any
of the defendants resides.

In an action for recovery of personal property, or collection of
debt, or claim upon a tort, the venue depends upon whether or not a
written agreement is sued upon. Where there is such agreement, the
venue is the municipality agreed upon by the parties in such writing;
otherwise, the venue is the municipality where the written agreement
was executed if such place of execution appears on the face of the
writing. Where the place of execution is not shown by writing, or the
action is not upon a written agreement, but upon an oral one or upon a
tort, the venue is the municipality where the defendant resides. (I
Comments on-the Rules of Court, Moran, 15.)

The motion to dismiss therefore is well taken and :the petition
will be granted with costs against respondent Miguel Tolentino. It is
so ordered.

Ozaeta, Pablo, Bengzon, Montemayor, and Reyes, JJ., concur.