G.R. Nos. 32020-32022, February 28, 1930
AGAPITO ABUTON, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ALEJANDRO PALER, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Three collection cases were filed by Agapito Abuton against Alejandro Paler in the justice of the peace (JP) court of Oroquieta, Misamis. The JP of Oroquieta declined jurisdiction and forwarded the cases to the JP court of Plaridel. In the Plaridel JP court, both parties appeared, presented evidence through counsel, and submitted to its jurisdiction. The JP court absolved Paler. Abuton appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Misamis. The CFI initially dismissed the cases for failure to prosecute but later reinstated them. Paler was declared in default for failure to answer. His motions to lift the default and to present evidence were denied. The CFI then rendered judgments in favor of Abuton. Paler moved for reconsideration and later filed a motion for new trial, which was denied. While the bills of exceptions were pending approval, Paler filed a motion to quash all proceedings for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the JP of Plaridel had no authority to try the cases because he was not designated by the CFI under Section 211 of the Administrative Code, citing Bacar and Magbanua vs. Tordecillas. The CFI granted the motion and dismissed the cases. Abuton moved for reconsideration, contending that Paler had voluntarily appeared and participated in both the JP court of Plaridel and the CFI, thereby waiving any objection to jurisdiction. The CFI granted the reconsideration, set aside its dismissal order, and ordered execution of the judgments, which had become final. Paler appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the JP court of Plaridel and the CFI of Misamis validly acquired jurisdiction over the cases despite the lack of a formal designation by the CFI for the JP of Plaridel to hear the cases forwarded from Oroquieta.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the CFI’s resolution ordering the execution of the judgments. The Court held that the objection related to venue (the place where the action is brought), not jurisdiction over the subject matter. Venue may be waived expressly or impliedly. Here, Paler voluntarily appeared, participated in the trial, and presented evidence before the JP court of Plaridel without objecting to its jurisdiction. He also actively participated in the CFI proceedings. By doing so, he waived any objection to the venue or jurisdiction of both courts. The cases of Manila Railroad Co. vs. Attorney-General and Nolan vs. Montelibano, which uphold the principle that objections to venue are waivable, are applicable. The ruling in Bacar and Magbanua vs. Tordecillas is inapplicable because jurisdiction was acquired by the voluntary submission of the parties, not merely by the endorsement from the JP of Oroquieta. Additionally, the CFI’s judgments had already become final when the order of dismissal was issued, as Paler’s motion for new trial was filed beyond the reglementary period. Thus, the CFI correctly set aside the dismissal and ordered execution. The appealed resolution is affirmed, with costs against Paler.