Practice question
A plaintiff actually resides in two places, with genuine habitual physical stays in each. The opponent says the existence of one domicile categorically eliminates the other actual residence for ordinary personal-action venue. Which is sound?
- A second actual residence is legally impossible.
- Every address other than domicile must be fictitious.
- Only the location of the plaintiff’s lawyer may be used.
- Saludo rejects the claimed necessary identity between a single domicile and every permissible actual residence.
- Every temporary presence necessarily qualifies without factual inquiry.
Legal references
- Hernando v. Golden Sun Finance Corp., G.R. No. 259295, May 7, 2025, main decision, actual relief and scope of exclusive venue: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2025/may2025/gr_259295_2025.html
- Saludo, Jr. v. American Express International, Inc., G.R. No. 159507, April 19, 2006, main decision, actual residence for venue versus domicile: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_159507_2006.html
- 2019 Amendments to Civil Procedure, Rules 2-4 and relevant Rule 10 Section 3, current operative provisions: https://lawphil.net/courts/rules/am_19-10-20-sc_2019.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.