Infante vs Aran Builders

Facts:

Before the RTC of Muntinlupa was an action for revival of judgment

filed by Aran Builders against Adelaida Infante.

The judgment sought to be revived was rendered by RTC Makati in an

action for specific performance and damages, where it ruled in favor of
Aran Builders ordered Infante to:
1. Deliver the following: a. complete plans (lot plan, location map
and vicinity map); b. irrevocable power of attorney; c. real estate
tax clearance; d. tax receipts; e. proof of up to date payment of
association dues;
2. To execute a deed of sale of a lot in Ayala Alabang in favor of
the former, to register;
3. To pay the taxes in connection with the sale;
4. To secure writtin conformity of Ayala Corp. to the said sale
5. To register the deed of sale with the RD
6. Pay the sum of P321, 918.25 upon compliance

Aran Builders spught to revive the judgment since Infante refused to

comply to the courts order. Infante filed a motion to dismiss the action
for revival of judgment on the ground that the Muntinlupa RTC had no
jurisdiction over the persons of the parties and that venues was
improperly laid.

Motion to dismiss was denied on the reason that the case to be revived
was heard in the Makati RTC was only because there was still not RTC
in Muntinlupa. With the creation of RTCs of Muntinlupa, matters
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, RTC of Muntinlipa is the correct venue.

Infante 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 the judgment is either Makati or Paranaque where private
respondent and petitioner reside, at the election of private respondent.

CA held that since the judgment sought to be revived was rendered in

an 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:

1. WON the revival of judgment is a real action

2. WON Muntinlupa RTC is the correct venue for the revival of judgment
rendered by Makati RTC

Held:
1. Yes. In Aldeguer vs Gemelo, the Court held that: xx an action upon
a judgment must be brought either in the same court where said
judgment was rendered or in the place where the plaintiff or defendant
resides, or in any other place designated by the statues which
treat of the venue of actions in general.

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. The allegations in the complaint for revival of judgment
determine whether it is a real action or a personal action.

The previous judgment has conclusively declared Aram Builders right

to have the title over the disputed property conveyed to it. It is
therefore undeniable, that it has an established interest over the lot in
question; and to protect such right or interest, it brought suit to revive
the previous judgment. The sole reason for the action to revive is
the enforcement of Aram Builders adjudged rights over a
piece of realty. Verily, the action falls under the category of a
real action, for it affects its interest over real property.

2. Yes. Originally, Muntinlupa was under the territorial jurisdiction of

the Makati Courts. However, BP 129 provided for the creation of a
branch of the RTC in Muntinlupa. Thus, it is now the RTC of Muntinlupa
which has territorial jurisdiction to validly issue orders and processes
concerning real property within Muntinlupa