Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

Infante v.

Aran Builders
Facts:
Aran Builders went before the RTC of Muntinlupa city for action for revival of judgement
against Adelaida Infante. The judgement sought to be revived was rendered by the RTC of Makati
in an action for specific performance and damages. The Makati RTC ruled in favor of Aran
Builders which ordered Infante to execute a deed of sale over a parcel of land in Ayala Alabang
Subdivision in favor of Aran Builders, pay all pertinent taxes, register the deed of sale and deliver
the certificate of title.
Infante filed a motion to dismiss (for revival of judgement) on the ground that the RTC of
Muntinlupa has no jurisdiction over the person of the parties. The motion to dismiss was denied.
The RTC of Muntinlupa rationed that it is because at the time decision was rendered by the Makati
RTC, there was no RTC yet in Muntinlupa. Since now there is an RTC in Muntinlupa and the
subject property is located therein, Muntinlupa is a proper venue to file the complaint for revival
of a judgement. Infante’s motion to dismiss was denied
Infante: The CA acted in grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. A
complaint for specific performance and damages before the Makati RTC is a personal action,
therefor the suit to revive judgement is also personal therefore jurisdiction lies in either Makati or
Paranaque where they reside, at the election of the respondent.
Aran builders: It is quasi in rem because it involves real property, thus venue lies in Muntinlupa
CA ruled in favor of Aran Builders, thus an appeal by Infante.
ISSUE: W/N the RTC of Muntinlupa is the proper venue for the present action for revival of
judgment?
HELD: YES
Section 6, Rule 39 provides that after the lapse of 5 years from entry of judgement and before it is
barred by the statute of limitations, a final and executory judgment or order may be enforced by
action. The rule however does not specific in which court the action should be filed. Thus, the
proper venue depends on the determination of whether the present actions for revival of judgement
is a real action or a personal action. If it affects title or possession of real property or interest therein
it is a real action to be filed with the court of the place where the real property is located, if it does
not fall under such category of real actions, then it is a personal action to be filed with the court of
the place where the plaintiff or defendant resides.
The allegations in the complaint will determine whether it is a real or personal action. The previous
judgment has conclusively declared Aran Builder’s right to have title over the property. The sole
reason for the action is the enforcement of her rights over the piece of realty, thus it falls under the
category of a real action, and thus should be filed with the RTC of where the realty is located. The
RTC of Muntinlupa therefore has valid jurisdiction over the subject property and the revival of
judgement.
PETITION DENIED

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi