Republic of the
Supreme Court
THIRD DIVISION
ADELAIDA INFANTE, G.R. NO. 156596
Petitioner,
Present:
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.,
Chairperson,
- versus - AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CHICO-NAZARIO,
NACHURA,
and
REYES,
JJ.
ARAN BUILDERS, INC., Promulgated:
Respondent.* August 24, 2007
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
This
resolves the Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking the reversal of the
Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA)
promulgated on
The
undisputed facts and issues raised in the lower courts are accurately
summarized by the CA as follows:
Before
the Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City (or “Muntinlupa RTC”; Branch 276), presided over by Hon. Norma
C. Perello (or “respondent judge”), was an action for
revival of judgment filed on June 6, 2001 by Aran
Builders, Inc. (or “private respondent”) against Adelaida
Infante (or “petitioner”), docketed as Civil Case No.
01-164.
The
judgment sought to be revived was rendered by the
The
Makati RTC judgment, which became final and executory on
26. WHEREFORE, the Court hereby renders judgment as follows:
26.1 The defendant ADELAIDA B. INFANTE is ordered to do the following within
thirty (30) days from finality hereof:
26.1.1. To deliver to the plaintiff ARAN BUILDERS, INC.
the following: (a) the 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 Subdivision Association dues
referred to in the “CONTRACT TO SELL” dated November 10, 1986 (Exh. A or Exh.
1);
26.1.2. To execute the deed of sale of Lot No. 11, Block
9, Phase 3-A1, Ayala Alabang Subdivision covered by
TCT No. 114015 for P500,000.00 in favor of the plaintiff;
26.1.3. To pay the capital gains tax, documentary stamp taxes and other taxes
which the Bureau of Internal Revenue may assess in connection with the sale
mentioned in the preceding paragraph and to submit to the plaintiff proof of
such payment;
26.1.4. To secure the written conformity of AYALA CORPORATION to the said sale
and to give such written conformity to the plaintiff;
26.1.5. To register the deed of sale with the Registry of Deeds and deliver to
AYALA CORPORATION the certificate of title issued in the name of plaintiff
pursuant to such registration;
26.2 Upon the compliance of the defendant with the preceding directives, the
plaintiff must immediately pay to the defendant the sum of P321,918.25;
26.3 The defendant is ordered to pay plaintiff P10,000.00 as attorney’s fees;
26.4 The Complaint for moral and exemplary damages is DISMISSED;
26.5 The COUNTERCLAIM is DISMISSED; and
26.6 Cost is taxed against the defendant.
Petitioner
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. Private respondent opposed the
motion.
On
The MOTION TO DISMISS is denied.
Admittedly, the Decision was rendered
by the Makati Regional Trial Court, but it must be
emphasized that at that
time there was still no Regional Trial Court in
The case at bar is a revival of a
judgment which declared the plaintiff as the owner of a parcel of land located
in
Defendant may answer the complaint within the remaining period, but
no less than five (5) days, otherwise a default
judgment might be taken against her.
It is SO ORDERED.
Her
motion for reconsideration having been denied per order dated
Petitioner
asserts that the complaint for specific performance and damages before the Makati RTC is a personal action 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 Parañaque City where private respondent and
petitioner respectively reside, at the election of private respondent.
On
the other hand, private respondent maintains that the subject action for
revival judgment is “quasi in rem because it involves
and affects vested or adjudged right on a real property”; and that,
consequently, venue lies in
On
Hence,
herein petition. Petitioner claims that
the CA erred in finding that the complaint for revival of judgment is an action
in rem which was correctly filed with the RTC of the place where the disputed
real property is located.
The
petition is unmeritorious.
Petitioner
insists that the action for revival of judgment is an action in personam; therefore, the complaint should be filed with the
RTC of the place where either petitioner or private respondent resides.
Petitioner then concludes that the filing of the action for revival of
judgment with the RTC of Muntinlupa City, the place
where the disputed property is located, should be dismissed on the ground of
improper venue.
Private
respondent is of the opinion that the judgment it is seeking to revive involves
interest over real property. As such,
the present action for revival is a real action, and venue was properly laid
with the court of the place where the realty is located.
Thus,
the question that must be answered is: where is the proper venue of the present
action for revival of judgment?
Section
6, Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides that after the lapse
of five (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:
x x x 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 statutes which treat of the venue of actions in general.
(Emphasis supplied)[4]
but emphasized that other provisions in the rules
of procedure which fix the venue of actions in general must be considered.[5]
Under
the present Rules of Court, Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 4 provide:
Section 1. Venue of real actions. -
Actions affecting title to or possession of real property, or interest therein,
shall be commenced and tried in the proper court which has jurisdiction over
the area wherein the real property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated.
x x x x
Section 2. Venue
of personal actions. - All other actions may be
commenced and tried where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs
resides, or where the defendant or any of the principal defendants resides, or
in the case of a non-resident defendant where he may be found, at the election
of the plaintiff.
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. Applying the afore-quoted rules on venue, 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 such
action does not fall under the category of real actions, it is then a personal
action that may be filed with the court of the place where the plaintiff or
defendant resides.
In
support of her contention that the action for revival of judgment is a personal
action and should be filed in the court of the place where either the plaintiff
or defendant resides, petitioner cites the statements made by the Court in Aldeguer v. Gemelo[6] and Donnelly v. Court of First
Instance of Manila[7]. Petitioner, however, seriously misunderstood
the Court's rulings in said cases.
In Aldeguer, what the Court stated was that “[t]he action for the execution of a judgment for damages is a personal one, and under
section 377 [of the Code of Civil Procedure], it should be brought in any
province where the plaintiff or the defendant resides, at the election of the
plaintiff”[8] (Emphasis and underscoring
supplied). Petitioner apparently took
such statement to mean that any action for revival of judgment should be
considered as a personal one. This thinking
is incorrect. 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. The
complaint filed in the revival case did not fall under the category of real
actions and, thus, the action necessarily fell under the category of personal actions.
In Donnelly, the portion of the Decision
being relied upon by petitioner stated thus:
Petitioner
raises before this Court two (2) issues, namely: (a)
whether an action for revival of judgment is one quasi in rem
and, therefore, service of summons may be effected thru publication; and (b)
whether the second action for revival of judgment (Civil Case No. 76166) has
already prescribed. To
our mind, the first is not a proper and justiciable
issue in the present proceedings x x x. Nevertheless, let
it be said that an action to revive a judgment is a personal one. (Emphasis supplied)[9]
The Court clearly pointed out that in said case, the issue on whether an action for revival of judgment
is quasi in rem was not yet proper and justiciable.
Therefore, the foregoing statement cannot be used as a precedent, as it was merely an obiter dictum.
Moreover, as in Aldeguer, the judgment sought to be revived in Donnelly involved judgment for a certain
sum of money. Again, no title or
interest in real property was involved.
It is then understandable that the action for revival in said case was
categorized as a personal one.
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.
The allegations in the complaint for revival of judgment determine whether
it is a real action or a personal action.
The
complaint for revival of judgment alleges that a final and executory
judgment has ordered herein petitioner to execute a deed of sale over a parcel
of land in Ayala Alabang Subdivision in favor of herein
private respondent; pay all pertinent taxes in connection with said sale;
register the deed of sale with the Registry of Deeds and deliver to Ayala
Corporation the certificate of title issued in the name of private respondent. The same judgment ordered private respondent
to pay petitioner the sum of P321,918.25
upon petitioner's compliance with the aforementioned order. It is further alleged that petitioner refused
to comply with her judgment obligations despite private respondent's repeated
requests and demands, and that the latter was compelled to file the action for
revival of judgment. Private respondent
then prayed that the judgment be revived and a writ of execution be issued to
enforce said judgment.
The
previous judgment has conclusively declared private respondent's right to have
the title over the disputed property conveyed to it. It is, therefore, undeniable that private
respondent has an established interest over the lot in question;
and to protect such right or interest, private respondent brought suit to
revive the previous judgment. The sole
reason for the present action to revive is the enforcement of private
respondent's adjudged rights over a piece of realty. Verily, the action falls under the category
of a real action, for it affects private respondent's interest over
real property.
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.
Section 18 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 129 provides:
Sec. 18. Authority to define territory appurtenant to each
branch. - The
Supreme Court shall define the territory over
which a branch of the Regional Trial Court shall exercise its 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, proceedings or actions,
whether civil or criminal, as well as determining the Metropolitan Trial
Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts over which
the said branch may exercise appellate jurisdiction. The power herein granted shall be exercised
with a view to making the courts readily accessible to the people of the
different parts of the region and making the attendance of litigants and
witnesses as inexpensive as possible.
(Emphasis supplied)
From the foregoing, it is quite clear that a branch of the Regional Trial Court shall
exercise its authority only over a particular territory defined by the Supreme
Court. Originally,
Thus, there was no grave abuse of discretion committed by the
WHEREFORE, the
petition is DENIED. The Decision dated
SO
ORDERED.
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
MINITA V.
Associate Justice Associate Justice
RUBEN T. REYES
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I
attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s
attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision
had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
* The Court of Appeals was originally impleaded as respondent. Per Section 4, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, the Court of Appeals is deleted from the title of the case.
[1] Penned
by Associate Justice Edgardo P. Cruz, with Associate
Justices Hilarion L. Aquino
and Regalado E. Maambong,
concurring, rollo, pp. 19-26.
[2] Rollo, pp. 19-23.
[3] 68 Phil. 421 (1939).
[4]
[5]
[6] Supra note 3.
[7] 150-A Phil. 167 (1972).
[8] Supra note 3, at p. 423.
[9]
Donnelly v. Court of First
Instance of