Infante vs. Aran Builders, Inc.

For purposes of venue, an action for revival of judgment is classified as a real action when the judgment sought to be revived adjudicates title to, possession of, or an interest in real property; consequently, the complaint must be filed in the proper court of the place where the real property is located, in accordance with Section 1, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court.

On November 16, 1994, a judgment rendered by the Regional Trial Court of Makati City (Branch 60) in Civil Case No. 15563—an action for specific performance and damages—became final and executory. That judgment ordered petitioner Adelaida Infante to deliver to respondent Aran Builders, Inc. the complete plans, Irrevocable Power of Attorney, tax clearance and other documents; to execute a deed of sale over Lot No. 11, Block 9, Phase 3-A1, Ayala Alabang Subdivision, Muntinlupa City (covered by TCT No. 114015) for ₱500,000.00; to pay capital gains tax, documentary stamp taxes and other BIR assessments; to secure Ayala Corporation’s written conformity to the sale; and to register the deed of sale and deliver the new certificate of title to Ayala Corporation. Upon compliance, respondent was ordered to pay petitioner ₱321,918.25 and attorney’s fees of ₱10,000.00. Petitioner failed to comply with her obligations under the judgment, prompting respondent to file an action for revival of judgment after more than five years had elapsed from its finality.

• The Underlying Judgment: A final and executory judgment in Civil Case No. 15563 (Makati RTC, Branch 60) ordered petitioner Adelaida Infante to: deliver to respondent Aran Builders, Inc. the complete plans, Irrevocable Power of Attorney, Real Estate Tax clearance, tax receipts, and proof of paid subdivision dues; execute a deed of sale over Lot No. 11, Block 9, Phase 3-A1, Ayala Alabang Subdivision, Muntinlupa City (TCT No. 114015) for ₱500,000.00; pay capital gains tax, documentary stamp taxes, and other BIR assessments; secure Ayala Corporation’s written conformity to the sale; register the deed of sale and deliver the new certificate of title to Ayala Corporation. Upon compliance, respondent was ordered to pay petitioner ₱321,918.25, plus ₱10,000.00 as attorney’s fees. The judgment became final and executory on November 16, 1994, but petitioner did not comply.

• Action for Revival of Judgment: On June 6, 2001—after the lapse of five years from entry of judgment and before the running of the prescriptive period—respondent filed an action for revival of judgment (Civil Case No. 01-164) with the RTC of Muntinlupa City, Branch 276, where the subject property is located. The complaint alleged petitioner’s continued refusal to comply and prayed that the judgment be revived and a writ of execution issued.

• Motion to Dismiss: Petitioner moved to dismiss on the grounds that the Muntinlupa RTC had no jurisdiction over the persons of the parties and that venue was improperly laid. She argued that the action for revival is a personal action, and hence venue should be in Makati City or Parañaque City where the parties respectively reside, at the election of the plaintiff.

• RTC Ruling: The RTC denied the motion to dismiss. It reasoned that at the time the underlying judgment was rendered, there was no RTC in Muntinlupa City, and cases from Muntinlupa were tried in Makati. With the subsequent creation of the RTC in Muntinlupa, cases involving properties located there should be litigated in Muntinlupa. Since the revival action sought to enforce a judgment that declared respondent owner of land in Muntinlupa, the complaint necessarily involved interest, possession, title, and ownership of that property, making venue proper in Muntinlupa City.

• CA Ruling: The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that because the judgment sought to be revived was rendered in an action involving title to or possession of real property, the revival action is an action in rem that must be filed where the real property is situated. The CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.

• Petition before the Supreme Court: Petitioner maintained that the revival action is an action in personam and that venue was improperly laid in Muntinlupa City. Respondent countered that the revival action is a real action because it involves an adjudged interest over real property.

• Improper Venue – Personal Action: Petitioner argued that an action for revival of judgment is a personal action, and therefore under Section 2, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court, it may be filed only in the place where the plaintiff or defendant resides. Since respondent is a corporation domiciled in Makati City and petitioner resides in Parañaque City, the complaint should have been filed in either of those places, and the suit in Muntinlupa City was improperly venued and should be dismissed.

• Reliance on Precedents: Petitioner cited Aldeguer v. Gemelo and Donnelly v. Court of First Instance of Manila, contending that these cases stand for the proposition that an action for revival of judgment is always a personal action. She maintained that the CA gravely erred in classifying the revival action as in rem or a real action.

• Proper Venue – Real Action: Respondent countered that the judgment it sought to revive vested it with an adjudged right over a specific parcel of real property in Muntinlupa City. Because the revival action directly affects an interest in real property, the action is a real action; consequently, under Section 1, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court, venue was properly laid in the RTC of the place where the property is located.

• Venue of Revival Action: Whether an action for revival of judgment that seeks to enforce a final and executory judgment ordering the conveyance of real property is a real action or a personal action for purposes of determining the proper venue under Rule 4 of the Rules of Court.

• Venue of Revival Action: The action for revival of judgment was properly classified as a real action. The allegations in the complaint and the terms of the underlying judgment demonstrated that the sole purpose of the revival suit was to enforce respondent’s adjudged rights over a specific parcel of real property—namely, the right to have title conveyed, taxes paid, and the sale registered. Where the judgment sought to be revived concerns title to, possession of, or an interest in real property, the revival action itself affects that interest and must accordingly be treated as a real action for venue purposes under Section 1, Rule 4. The ruling in Aldeguer v. Gemelo—that an action for revival of a judgment for damages is a personal action—was distinguished on the ground that the underlying judgment there involved purely a money award and did not affect any title to or interest in real property. The statement in Donnelly v. Court of First Instance of Manila characterizing revival actions as personal was declared mere obiter dictum, as the issue was not justiciable in that proceeding and the judgment involved was also a money judgment. Thus, the trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion, and the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the denial of the motion to dismiss.

• Action for revival of judgment – character determined by underlying judgment — An action for revival of judgment is not inherently personal or real. Its character, for purposes of venue, is determined by the nature of the judgment sought to be revived. If the underlying judgment conclusively establishes rights over, title to, or possession of real property, the revival action is a real action and must be commenced and tried in the court having territorial jurisdiction over the area where the property is situated, pursuant to Section 1, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court. If the underlying judgment involves only a sum of money or other purely personal obligations, the revival action is a personal action that may be filed where the plaintiff or defendant resides under Section 2, Rule 4. The rule stems from the principle that an action upon a judgment may be brought either in the same court that rendered it, in the place where the parties reside, or in any other place designated by the general venue statutes—and those general venue statutes classify actions according to their subject matter.

• "The allegations in the complaint for revival of judgment determine whether it is a real action or a personal action." — This passage frames the test for classifying a revival action for venue purposes.

• "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." — This excerpt encapsulates the ratio decidendi, linking the purpose of the revival suit to the real-property interest established by the underlying judgment.

• "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." — The Court stripped Donnelly of precedential value regarding the personal character of revival actions, a critical clarification for venue analysis.

• Aldeguer v. Gemelo, 68 Phil. 421 (1939) — Followed but distinguished. The Supreme Court reaffirmed Aldeguer’s ruling that an action upon a judgment may be brought in any place designated by general venue statutes, but clarified that the action for revival in that case was classified as personal only because the underlying judgment was for damages, not because all revival actions are personal. The broader principle that general venue statutes apply was adopted.

• Donnelly v. Court of First Instance of Manila, 150-A Phil. 167 (1972) — Mentioned and limited. The statement that an action to revive a judgment is a personal one was declared obiter dictum and not controlling; the underlying judgment in Donnelly also involved only a sum of money, rendering its characterization inapplicable to real-property revival suits.

• Section 6, Rule 39, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Governs the enforcement of a final and executory judgment by action after five years from entry and before the bar of the statute of limitations. The Rule does not specify the venue of the revival action, thus making applicable the general venue provisions of Rule 4.

• Sections 1 and 2, Rule 4, Rules of Court — Section 1 provides that real actions affecting title to or possession of real property, or interest therein, shall be commenced in the court of the area where the property is situated. Section 2 provides that all other actions (personal actions) may be commenced where the plaintiff or defendant resides. The Supreme Court applied Section 1 because the revival action was found to affect an interest in real property.

• Section 18, Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1981) — Empowers the Supreme Court to define the territorial jurisdiction of each branch of the Regional Trial Court. Pursuant to this authority and Republic Act No. 7154, the RTC of Muntinlupa City was created and vested with jurisdiction over Muntinlupa City, making it the proper court to hear actions involving real property within that territory.

• Republic Act No. 7154 — Amended Section 14 of B.P. Blg. 129 by creating additional RTC branches, including a branch in Muntinlupa City, effective September 4, 1991. This removed Muntinlupa from the territorial jurisdiction of the Makati courts and vested the new Muntinlupa RTC with authority over cases involving properties located there.

Consuelo Ynares-Santiago (Chairperson), Minita V. Chico-Nazario, Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, Ruben T. Reyes.