Infante vs Aran Builders

AUG 24, 2007 | J. AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ

Aran Builders filed an action for revival of judgment against Infante with Muntinlupa RTC
- judgment to be revived was rendered by Makati RTC in an action for specific performance and
damages > Makati RTC judgment became final and executory on Nov 16, 1994 > in the
judgment, Infante was ordered to execute a deed of sale on a lot in Ayala Alabang in favor of
Aran.

P filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that Muntinlupa RTC has no jurisdiction over the
persons of the parties and that venue was improperly laid.

RTC: Motion to dismiss denied - at the time the decision was rendered, there was no Muntinlupa
RTC so Makati RTC was the one who rendered the decision. But with the creation of the
Muntinlupa RTC, cases involving Muntinlupa City residents were all ordered to be litigated in that
court. Since its a revival of judgment involving real property, venue was properly laid with
Muntinlupa RTC.

P - it is a personal action (venue should be in Makati or Paranaque where respondent and

petitioner respectively reside)
PR - It is a quasi-in rem action since it involves and affects vested or adjudged rights on a real
property (venue in Muntinlupa)

CA: ruled in favor of private respondent > since 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.

Petition for review on Certiorari under R45

P ARG: the action for revival of judgment is an action in personam. The filing of the action for
revival of judgment with the RTC of Muntinlupa should be dismissed on the ground of improper
venue.

Where is the proper venue of the present action for revival of judgment?

Rule 39, Sec 6 of 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure: after 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 doesnt specify in which court the action for revival of judgment
should be filed.
Aldeguer vs Gemelo: 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 statutes which treat of the venue of actions in general.
- emphasized that other provisions in the rules of procedure which fix the venue of actions in
general must be considered

Present rules: Sec 1 and 2 of Rule 4.

The proper venue depends on the determination of whether the present action for revival of
judgment is a real action or a personal action. If the action for revival of judgment affects title to or
possession of real property or interest therein, then it is a real action that must be filed with the
court of the place where the real property is located. If not, then it is a personal action.

Aldeguer and Donnelly cases do not apply to the case at bar. Aldeguer involved an action for the
execution for a judgment for damages, which the Court held to be personal. In Donnelly, the issue
on whether an action for revival of judgment is quasi in rem was not yet proper and justiciable.

The complaint for revival of judgment alleges that a final and executory judgment ordered P to
execute a deed of sale over a parcel of land in Ayala Alabang in favor of Aran Builders; pay all
pertinent taxes in connection to said sale; to register the sale with the Registry of Deeds. Same
judgment ordered PR to pay P sum of P321k upon Ps compliance with the order.

Further alleged that P refused to comply with her judgment obli despite PRs demands, and that
the latter was then compelled to file an action for revival of judgment.

Previous judgment conclusively declared PRs right to have title over the disputed property
conveyed to it. Therefore, its undeniable that PR has an established interest over the lot in
question, and to protect such right or interest, PR brought suit to revive the judgment. The reason
for the present action is to revive the enforcement of PRs adjudged rights over a piece of realty.
The action is therefore a real action, since it affects PRs interest over real property.

Complaint should have been filed with the RTC where the property was located.

No GAD committed by RTC Muntinlupa when they denied Ps motion to dismiss. Originally,
Muntinlupa City was under the territorial jurisdiction of the Makati Courts. But with the amendment
of BP 129 taking effect on Sept 4, 1991, an RTC was created in Muntinlupa. Its not the RTC in
Muntinlupa which has territorial jurisdiction or authority to validly issue orders and processes
concerning real property in Muntinlupa City.

Petition denied.