Infante Vs Aran Builders
Infante Vs Aran Builders
Infante Vs Aran Builders
Ratio:
Section 6, Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides that after
the lapse of 5 years from entry of judgment and before it is barred by the
statute of limitations, a final and executory judgment or order may be
enforced by action. The Rule does not specify in which court the action for
revival of judgment should be filed.
In Aldeguer v. Gemelo,[3] the Court held that:
The
judgment
sought
to
be
revived
was
rendered
by
the RTC of Makati City in an action for specific performance and damages,
where it ruled in favor of R and ordered P to execute a deed of sale of a lot in
Ayala Alabang, to register the said deed and deliver title to R, and to pay the
taxes of the said lot. The same judgment ordered R to pay P the sum
of P321,918.25 upon P's compliance with the aforementioned order. R
sought to revive the judgment since P refused to comply to the courts order.
P filed a motion to dismiss the action for revival of judgment on the grounds
that the Muntinlupa RTC has no jurisdiction over the persons of the parties
and that venue was improperly laid. R opposed the motion.
Muntinlupa RTC denied Ps MTD. Stating that the reason that the case to be
revived was heard in the Makati RTC was only because there was still no
RTC in Muntinlupa City. With the creation of the RTCs of Muntinlupa City,
matters involving properties located in this City, and cases
involving Muntinlupa City residents were all ordered to be litigated before
these Courts. Since the subject lot of the case to be revived is located in
Muntinlupa City, RTC of Muntinlupa is the correct venue.
P appealed to the CA and asserts that the complaint for specific performance
and damages before the Makati RTC is an action in personam and,
therefore, the suit to revive the judgment therein is also personal in nature;
and that, consequently, the venue of the action for revival of judgment is
either Makati City or Paraaque City where private respondent and petitioner
respectively reside, at the election of private respondent.
CA held that since the judgment sought to be revived was rendered in an
action involving title to or possession of real property, or interest therein,
the action for revival of judgment is then an action in rem which should be
filed with the RTC of the place where the real property is located.
Issues/Held:
WoN the revival of judgment is a real action- YES
WoN Muntinlupa RTC is the correct venue for the revival of judgment
rendered by Makati RTC- YES
Thus, the proper venue depends on the determination of whether the present
action for revival of judgment is a real action or a personal action.
P cites the case of Aldeguer to support her claim but misunderstood the
doctrine to mean that any action for revival of judgment should be considered
as a personal one. The Court specified that the judgment sought to be
revived in said case was a judgment for damages. The judgment subject of
the action for revival did not involve or affect any title to or possession of real
property or any interest therein. P also cited the case of Donnelly, but the
judgment to be revived in the said case was for a collection of a sum money
which is a personal action. Clearly, the Court's classification
in Aldeguer and Donnelly of the actions for revival of judgment as being
personal in character does not apply to the present case.
authority. The territory thus defined shall be deemed to be the territorial area
of the branch concerned for purposes of determining the venue of all suits.
The present case for revival of judgment being a real action, the
complaint should indeed be filed with the Regional Trial Court of the place
where the realty is located.
According to Sec.18 of BP129, the Supreme Court shall define the territory
over which a branch of the Regional Trial Court shall exercise its