Practice question
In an ordinary civil action, a resident defendant knows the venue facts but files an answer on the merits without raising improper venue at the earliest opportunity. After an unfavorable development, he first invokes venue as though it were nonwaivable subject-matter jurisdiction. No exceptional circumstance is present. Which is correct?
- Venue and subject-matter jurisdiction are always identical
- The omitted timely venue defense is ordinarily waived under current Rule 8 section 12
- Any defendant may reserve venue objections until after losing
- The omission automatically gives a court every class of subject-matter jurisdiction
- A private residence address is irrelevant to all personal actions
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.