Case Summary (G.R. No. 192048)
Proceedings in the RTC and Issuance of Writs
The RTC issued an order of replevin on December 2, 1974, based on Anama’s default. Citibank later moved for an alias writ of seizure to enforce the replevin order. The RTC granted this on February 28, 1977, and the Ex-Officio Sheriff seized the machinery in mid-March 1977. Anama’s motion for reconsideration was denied on March 18, 1977.
CA Proceedings in G.R. SP No. 06499 and Supreme Court Decision
Anama petitioned the Court of Appeals (CA) for certiorari and prohibition on March 21, 1977, challenging the RTC’s seizure orders as grave abuse of discretion. On July 30, 1982, the CA nullified the RTC resolutions and made permanent a writ of preliminary injunction, ordering return and restoration of seized property at respondents’ expense. Citibank appealed to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 61508), which dismissed the petition on March 17, 1999, affording the CA decision finality.
Destruction and Reconstruction of Records; Suspension of Proceedings
During the CA appeal, a fire on November 19, 1981, destroyed Branch 11 records, including those of Civil Case No. 95991. Anama successfully petitioned for record reconstruction in the RTC on May 3, 1982. On December 2, 1982, the RTC suspended all pending incidents in Civil Case No. 95991 until resolution of G.R. No. 61508.
Petition for Revival of Judgment in the Court of Appeals
Nearly a decade later, on March 12, 2009, Anama filed a petition in the CA to revive the CA’s July 30, 1982 decision. He argued that Citibank’s failure to reconstitute records in the RTC constituted abandonment of its money claim, entitling him to remand and further proceedings on his counterclaims. Citibank opposed jurisdiction, invoked laches, and denied abandonment.
Issues: Jurisdiction over Revival Suits
The principal issue is whether the CA had jurisdiction to entertain an action to revive a final and executory judgment. The CA denied the petition on November 19, 2009, holding that revival actions fall within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the RTC under BP 129.
Applicable Law on Revival of Judgments
Under Rule 39, Section 6, a final and executory judgment may be executed by motion within five years; thereafter it must be enforced by independent action within ten years before being barred by prescription. A revival suit constitutes a new action with the judgment as the cause of action, distinct from the original merits.
Analysis on Jurisdiction under BP 129
Jurisdiction over civil actions is determined by the nature of the relief sought and the legislative grant of authority. An action to revive a judgment does not involve the primary recovery of money but the enforcement of a final judgment. Section 19, BP 129 (as amended), vests exclusive original jurisdiction in RTCs over actions whose subject is incapable of pecuniary estim
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 192048)
Procedural Background
- Petitioner Douglas F. Anama sought review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court to reverse and set aside:
- The Court of Appeals (CA) Decision dated November 19, 2009 (CA-G.R. SP No. 107748) denying his action for revival of judgment.
- The CA Resolution dated April 20, 2010 denying his motion for reconsideration.
- The case originates from Civil Case No. 95991 filed by Citibank, N.A. (then First National City Bank) in 1974 before the Court of First Instance of Manila (now RTC, Branch 11).
- Anama’s certiorari and prohibition petition to the CA (CAA G.R. SP No. 06499) in March 1977 led to a CA Decision on July 30, 1982 nullifying RTC seizure orders.
- Citibank filed SC Review (G.R. No. 61508) in August 1982; SC dismissed it for lack of merit on March 17, 1999 (Entry of Judgment April 12, 1999).
- Records of Civil Case No. 95991 were destroyed by fire (November 19, 1981); RTC reconstructed them in May 1982 and suspended proceedings pending SC resolution.
- On March 12, 2009, Anama filed a petition with the CA to revive the July 30, 1982 CA Decision and to remand Civil Case No. 95991 for further proceedings.
- The CA denied for lack of jurisdiction on November 19, 2009; motion for reconsideration denied April 20, 2010.
- Anama brought the present petition to the Supreme Court on June 10, 2010.
Facts of the Case
- On November 10, 1972, Anama executed a promissory note for ₱418,000 in favor of Citibank and mortgaged industrial machinery and equipment as security.
- Anama defaulted on monthly installments beginning January 1974.
- Citibank filed a complaint for sum of money and replevin on November 13, 1974 (Civil Case No. 95991).
- RTC issued an Order of Replevin on December 2, 1974; Citibank secured an alias writ