sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/august2012/190071.pdf
'x x x.
Maunlad Homes questioned the venue of Union Bank’s unlawful detainer action which was filed in Makati City while the contested property is located in Malolos, Bulacan. Citing Section 1, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court, Maunlad Homes claimed that the unlawful detainer action should have been filed with the municipal trial court of the municipality or city
where the real property involved is situated. Union Bank, on the other hand, justified the filing of the complaint with the MeTC of Makati City on the venue stipulation in the contract which states that “[t]he venue of all suits and actions arising out [of] or in connection with this Contract to Sell shall
be at Makati City.”30
While Section 1, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court states that ejectment actions shall be filed in “the municipal trial court of the municipality or city wherein the real property involved x x x is situated[,]” Section 4 of the same Rule provides that the rule shall not apply “[w]here the parties have validly agreed in writing before the filing of the action on the exclusive venue
thereof.” Precisely, in this case, the parties provided for a different venue. In Villanueva v. Judge Mosqueda, etc., et al.,31 the Court upheld the validity of a stipulation in a contract providing for a venue for ejectment actions other than that stated in the Rules of Court. Since the unlawful detainer action is connected with the contract, Union Bank rightfully filed the complaint with the MeTC of Makati City.
x x x."
