ADELAIDA INFANTE, Petitioner,

vs.
ARAN BUILDERS, INC., Respondent.

G.R. NO. 156596   | August 24, 2007

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
Digest Author: Jude Fanila

Topic: Remedies for Protecting Property Rights – D. Real vs. Personal Action

Case Summary: Respondent, Aran Builders obtained a judgment before the Makati RTC which
recognized its title over a subject property over petitioner, Adelaida. Aran Builders filed an
action to revive the judgment before the Muninlupa RTC. Adelaida opposed, stating that the
action was a personal one, thus Muntinlupa RTC had no jurisdiction as personal actions have to
be filed where any of the parties reside.
SC held that actions for revival of judgment can be either personal or real, depending on the
subject of the judgment. Current action covers title to real property, therefore a real action which
must be filed where the subject property is located. Thus, Muntinlupa RTC had jurisdiction.

Petitioners: Adelaida Infante

Respondents: Aran Builders

Doctrines Involved:
Revival of Judgment – an action for revival of judgment may be a real or personal action. Such
character is determined w/n the revival of judgment affects title to or possession of real property
or interest. If so, then it is a real action. This is determined by the allegations in the complaint.

Rules of Court Rule 4, Sec. 1 and 2 – provides that venue for real action should be in the place
where the real property is. For personal actions, action must be in the place where the plaintiff
resides or, where the defendant resides. Or in non-resident defendants where they may be found.

FACTS:
1. Nov. 16 1994 – Original action filed before the RTC of Makati. A complaint for specific
performance and damages filed by respondent, Aran Builders against petitioner,
Adelaida. In the original case, Aran builders was declared as the owner of the parcel of
land in Muntinlupa which was validly sold to it by Adelaida.
2. Subsequently, Aran Builders filed an action for revival of judgment of the above decision
before the Muntinlupa RTC.
3. Petitioner, Adelaida filed a motion to dismiss the action for revival of judgment, claiming
that the Muntinlupa RTC had no jurisdiction.
a. Sept. 4 2001 – Motion to dismiss denied.
i. Muntinlupa RTC had jurisdiction because even if the original case was
before the RTC of Makati, at the time of the decision there was no
Muntinlupa RTC. Thus, it acquired territorial jurisdiction over the case
after its creation over all cases involving properties in the city.
4. On appeal, the CA dismissed the appeal, ruling in favor of Aran Builders.
 a. Because judgment sought to be revived was an action in rem i.e. involving title to
or possession of real property or interest, the action in rem should be filed in the
place where the real property is located.
5. Led to current appeal.

ARGUMENTS BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT:

 Petitioner’s Argument related to Doctrine: That the action for revival of judgment was an
action in personam, thus complaint should be before the RTC where the respondent lives
(Makati).
 Respondent’s Argument related to Doctrine: That the action was an action in rem thus,
complaint should be where the subject property is.

ISSUES + HELD:
1. W/N the Muntinlupa RTC was the proper venue? – YES
a. Revival of Judgment – an action for revival of judgment may be a real or personal
action. Such character is determined w/n the revival of judgment affects title to or
possession of real property or interest. If so, then it is a real action. This is
determined by the allegations in the complaint.
i. Rule 39 Sec. 6 of the 1997 Rules of Procedure – covers actions for revival
of judgment, does not say w/n it is a real or personal action.
ii. Rules of Court Rule 4, Sec. 1 and 2 – provides that venue for real action
should be in the place where the real property is. For personal actions,
action must be in the place where the plaintiff resides or, where the
defendant resides. Or in non-resident defendants where they may be
found.
iii. Aldeguer v. Gemelo – affirmed this. Held that an action for revival of
judgment must be brought either in the same court where judgment was
rendered or where the plaintiff/defendant resides or, in any other place
designated by the statutes which treat of the venue of actions in general.
b. Petitioner’s Cited Cases
i. Aldeguer v. Gemelo – there, the case was a case for damages. Thus, a
personal action.
ii. Donnelly v. CFI – the pronouncement there that an action for revival of
judgment is a personal one is mere obiter dictum. Also, there the action
involved money claims, thus still a personal action.
c. Application – present case is an action in rem as the complaint involves a deed of
sale over a parcel of land in favor of Aran Builders, executed by petitioner.
Previous judgment conclusively declared that Aran Builders had the right to have
the title over the disputed property. Thus, a real action. Therefore, complaint
should be filed with the RTC where the realty is located.
i. Proper Venue – BP 129 Sec. 18 - i a branch of RTC shall exercise
authority only over a particular territory defined by the SC. Originally,
Muntinlupa was under the RTC of Makati. However, under RA 7154
which amended BP 129 created the RTC of Muntinlupa. Thus, action
should now be under the Muntinlupa RTC.
 d. No grave abuse of discretion, on the part of the Muntinlupa RTC and CA.

RULING:

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated August 12, 2002 and Resolution
dated January 7, 2003 of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

DISSENT:

NOTES:
i
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.