Practice question
An ordinary personal-action contract states only that the parties agree to sue and be sued in the courts of Manila, without restrictive or exclusive words. A party says the clause necessarily abolishes the otherwise proper residence venues. What does Polytrade establish?
- Every mention of a city is necessarily exclusive
- The clause is necessarily void and Manila can never be used
- The clause is permissive, adding an agreed forum without necessarily excluding the Rule 4 alternatives
- The clause creates subject-matter jurisdiction in every Manila court
- The clause always makes every real action a personal action
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/courts/rules/am_19-10-20-sc_2019.html — Rule 4 sections 1–4, real and personal actions, nonresidents and exceptions; Rule 8 section 12, timely venue defense.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1969/oct1969/gr_l-27033_1969.html — Polytrade Corp. v. Blanco, G.R. No. L-27033, October 31, 1969, permissive versus exclusive venue stipulation; current procedural requirements read from amended Rules.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.