Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • G.R. No. 192048 DOUGLAS F. ANAMA, Petitioner, CITIBANK, N.A. (Formerly First National City Bank), Respondent

    Uploaded by

    PIKACHUCHIE
    126 views2 pages
    Douglas Anama filed a petition for revival of judgment with the Court of Appeals after the records of his previous case were destroyed in a fire. The Court of Appeals denied the petition for lack of jurisdiction, as jurisdiction over petitions to revive judgment lies properly with Regional Trial Courts. The Supreme Court upheld this ruling, noting that an action for revival of judgment is a new case with a new cause of action, subject to the normal rules on jurisdiction rather than being dependent on the previous case.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Anama-vs-Citibank

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Douglas Anama filed a petition for revival of judgment with the Court of Appeals after the records of his previous case were destroyed in a fire. The Court of Appeals denied the petition for lack of jurisdiction, as jurisdiction over petitions to revive judgment lies properly with Regional Trial Courts. The Supreme Court upheld this ruling, noting that an action for revival of judgment is a new case with a new cause of action, subject to the normal rules on jurisdiction rather than being dependent on the previous case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    126 views2 pages

    G.R. No. 192048 DOUGLAS F. ANAMA, Petitioner, CITIBANK, N.A. (Formerly First National City Bank), Respondent

    Uploaded by

    PIKACHUCHIE
    Douglas Anama filed a petition for revival of judgment with the Court of Appeals after the records of his previous case were destroyed in a fire. The Court of Appeals denied the petition for lack of jurisdiction, as jurisdiction over petitions to revive judgment lies properly with Regional Trial Courts. The Supreme Court upheld this ruling, noting that an action for revival of judgment is a new case with a new cause of action, subject to the normal rules on jurisdiction rather than being dependent on the previous case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    G.R. No.

    192048

    DOUGLAS F. ANAMA, Petitioner,
    vs.
    CITIBANK, N.A. (formerly First National City Bank), Respondent.

    Facts:

    Anama filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with writ of preliminary injunction


    with the CA on (docketed as CAG. R. SP No. 06499) on the ground that the resolutions of the
    trial court on the replevin case of Anama and Citibank were issued in excess of jurisdiction
    and with grave abuse of discretion because of the lack of evidence proving Citibank's right
    to possession over the properties subject of the chattel mortgage.

    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.

    The CA denied the petition for lack of jurisdiction.

    Anama filed his motion for reconsideration which the CA denied.

    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.

    You might also like