View full case

DOUGLAS F. ANAMA v. CITIBANK

FACTS:

Petitioner Douglas F. Anama executed a promissory note in favor of Citibank in 1972 to secure a loan. However, Anama failed to pay the monthly installments starting in 1974, prompting Citibank to file a complaint for sum of money and replevin. The court issued an order of replevin, and Citibank filed a motion for an alias writ of seizure when the seized properties were not delivered to them. Anama filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied. Anama then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals (CA) questioning the trial court's orders. The CA granted the petition, nullifying the orders of seizure and directing Citibank and the sheriff to return the seized properties. Citibank filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, but it was dismissed. During the pendency of the case in the CA, a fire destroyed the records of the trial court. Anama later filed a petition for revival of judgment with the CA, seeking to revive the CA's previous decision and requesting further proceedings in the trial court on his counterclaims against Citibank. Citibank argued that the petition should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, laches, and its failure to initiate reconstitution proceedings. The CA denied the petition, stating that it should have been filed with the appropriate Regional Trial Court (RTC). Anama filed a motion for reconsideration, which was also denied.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the Court of Appeals (CA) has jurisdiction over the petition for revival of judgment.

  2. Whether the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to hear and decide an action for revival of judgment.

  3. Whether the concept of venue can be applied to an action for revival of judgment.

RULING:

  1. The CA correctly dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. An action to revive a judgment is considered a new and independent action with a new cause of action. It is a separate action whose purpose is to enforce a judgment that can no longer be enforced by mere motion. Therefore, the jurisdictional requirements of the action for revival of judgment are not dependent on the jurisdiction of the previous action. The petitioner is not required to file the petition in the same court which rendered the judgment sought to be revived.

  2. The Court of Appeals does not have jurisdiction to hear and decide an action for revival of judgment. The jurisdiction over a petition to revive judgment is properly with the Regional Trial Courts (RTCs). An action for revival of judgment is outside the scope of jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals.

  3. Venue and jurisdiction are distinct matters. While venue can be changed by the consent of the parties, jurisdiction cannot. Jurisdiction may not be conferred by consent or waiver upon a court which otherwise would have no jurisdiction over the subject matter of an action. Venue is procedural and can be waived, unlike jurisdiction.

PRINCIPLES:

  • An action to revive a judgment is a new and independent action with a new cause of action. It is an action whose exclusive purpose is to enforce a judgment that cannot be enforced by mere motion.

  • The jurisdiction of the court is determined by the nature of the action as pleaded in the complaint. The jurisdictional requirements of an action for revival of judgment are not dependent on the jurisdiction of the previous action.

  • The court's jurisdiction is determined by the law in force at the time of the commencement of the action.

  • Jurisdiction over an action whose subject is incapable of pecuniary estimation is conferred to the Regional Trial Courts (RTCs) under Batas Pambansa Bilang 129 (BP 129), also known as the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980. The nature of the principal action or remedy sought must be ascertained to determine if it primarily involves the recovery of a sum of money or if the money claim is incidental to the principal relief sought.

  • Jurisdiction over an action for revival of judgment is properly with the Regional Trial Courts (RTCs).

  • The Court of Appeals does not have jurisdiction to hear and decide an action for revival of judgment.

  • Venue and jurisdiction are distinct matters. Venue can be changed by the consent of the parties, but jurisdiction cannot.