FACTS:

Petitioner Sasha M. Cabrera filed a petition to correct her year of birth from 1980 to 1989 in her first Report of Birth. She alleged that she was born on July 20, 1989 in Malaysia but her birth was only reported on August 27, 2008. The National Statistics Office recorded her first Report of Birth as July 20, 1980. Instead of correcting the error with the Philippine Embassy, her mother registered her birth for the second time, resulting in a second Report of Birth. Due to having two Reports of Birth, petitioner encountered difficulties in securing official documents. She filed a petition for cancellation of her first Report of Birth before the RTC-Br. 17, which was granted. However, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision and stated that the proper recourse was to file a petition for correction of entry. Petitioner then re-filed the petition before RTC-Br. 14.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the RTC-Br. 14 erred in dismissing the re-filed petition on the ground of improper venue.

RULING:

1. Yes, the RTC-Br. 14 erred in dismissing the re-filed petition on the ground of improper venue. Venue is procedural and may be waived. When the venue of a civil action is improperly laid, the court cannot motu proprio dismiss the case. In this case, the petitioner filed the first petition in her place of domicile, Davao City, and the OSG did not raise any objection to such venue. The RTC-Br. 14 should have taken cognizance of and heard the re-filed petition to promote the ends of justice. Moreover, courts may not motu proprio dismiss a case on the ground of improper venue unless the defendant objects in a motion to dismiss. The RTC-Br. 14 erred in dismissing the case. The petition is granted, the orders of the RTC-Br. 14 are reversed and set aside, and the case is reinstated and remanded for further proceedings.