G.R. No. 192048 DOUGLAS F. ANAMA, Petitioner, CITIBANK, N.A. (Formerly First National City Bank), Respondent
G.R. No. 192048 DOUGLAS F. ANAMA, Petitioner, CITIBANK, N.A. (Formerly First National City Bank), Respondent
192048
DOUGLAS F. ANAMA, Petitioner,
vs.
CITIBANK, N.A. (formerly First National City Bank), Respondent.
Facts:
Meanwhile, during the pendency of CA-G.R. SP No. 06499 in the CA, the fourth floor of the
Manila City Hall, where Branch 11 of the R TC of Manila and its records, including the
records of Civil Case No. 95991 were located, was destroyed by fire.
Anama filed a petition for reconstruction of record in the RTC, which the latter.
Anama filed a petition for revival of judgment with the CA (docketed as CA-G.R. SP No.
107748).
In its comment, Citibank argued that the petition should be dismissed as an action for
revival of judgment is within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the RTC.
Issue/s:
Whether the CA err in dismissing the petition to revive judgement on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction.
Ruling:
No. Jurisdiction over a petition to revive judgment is properly
with the RTCs. Thus, the CA is correct in holding that it does not have
jurisdiction to hear and decide Anama's action for revival of judgment.
A reading of the CA's jurisdiction also highlights the conclusion that an
action for revival of judgment is outside the scope of jurisdiction of the
CA which is stipulated in Section 9 of BP 129. As an action for revival
of judgment is a new action with a new cause of action, the rules on
instituting and commencing actions apply, including the rules on
jurisdiction. Its jurisdictional requirements are not dependent on the
previous action and the petition does not necessarily have to be filed in
the same court which rendered judgment.
No. Jurisdiction over a petition to revive judgment is properly
with the RTCs. Thus, the CA is correct in holding that it does not have
jurisdiction to hear and decide Anama's action for revival of judgment.
A reading of the CA's jurisdiction also highlights the conclusion that an
action for revival of judgment is outside the scope of jurisdiction of the
CA which is stipulated in Section 9 of BP 129. As an action for revival
of judgment is a new action with a new cause of action, the rules on
instituting and commencing actions apply, including the rules on
jurisdiction. Its jurisdictional requirements are not dependent on the
previous action and the petition does not necessarily have to be filed in
the same court which rendered judgment.
No. Jurisdiction over a petition to revive judgment is properly with the RTCs. Thus, the CA
is correct in holding that it does not have jurisdiction to hear and decide Anama's action for
revival of judgment. A reading of the CA's jurisdiction also highlights the conclusion that an
action for revival of judgment is outside the scope of jurisdiction of the CA which is
stipulated in Section 9 of BP 129. As an action for revival of judgment is a new action with a
new cause of action, the rules on instituting and commencing actions apply, including the
rules on jurisdiction. Its jurisdictional requirements are not dependent on the previous
action and the petition does not necessarily have to be filed in the same court which
rendered judgment.