UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW Civil Procedure

Dizon (E2024) Professor Avena

Anama v. Citibank
G.R. No. 192048 – December 13, 2017
First Division | Jardeleza, J.
Topic: Judgments, Final Orders and Entry thereof – Rule 36; Execution, Satisfaction of Judgments; Rule 39
sec. 6

Article/s Invoked:
Rule 39, Sec. 6. Execution by motion or by independent action. — A final and executory judgment or order
may be executed on motion within five (5) years from the date of its entry. After the lapse of such time, and
before it is barred by the statute of limitations, a judgment may be enforced by action. The revived judgment
may also be enforced by motion within five (5) years from the date of its entry and thereafter by action before
it is barred by the statute of limitations.

Parties: Douglas Anama, petitioner

Citibank, N.A. (formerly First National City Bank), respondent

Doctrine:
An action to revive a judgment is an action whose exclusive purpose is to enforce a judgment which could no
longer be enforced by mere motion. Sec. 6 of Rule 39 provides that once a judgment becomes final and
executory, the prevailing party can have it executed as a matter of right by mere motion within five years from
the date of entry of judgment. If the prevailing party fails to have the decision enforced by a motion after the
lapse of five years, the said judgment is reduced to a right of action which must be enforced by the institution
of a complaint in a regular court within 10 years from the time the judgment becomes final.

FACTS OF THE CASE [color-coded the cases so it’s not confusing]

Anama executed a promissory note in favor of Citibank in consideration for a loan he obtained from said bank.
To secure payment, Anama also executed a chattel mortgage over various industrial machineries and
equipment located on his property in QC. For his failure to pay the monthly installments due on the promissory
note, Citibank filed a complaint for sum of money and replevin with the CFI-Manila. Anama filed his answer
with counterclaim and his amended answer with counterclaim, alleging that his failure to pay the monthly
installments was due to the fault of Citibank as it refused to receive his checks, and that the chattel mortgage
was defective and void. The RTC issued an order of replevin over Anama’s machineries and equipment
covered by the chattel mortgage.

Citibank, alleging that the properties subject of replevin which were taken by the Sheriff were not delivered
to it, filed a motion for issuance of alias writ of seizure, praying that it be issued directing the Sheriff to seize
and dispose the properties. The RTC granted the motion, so the ex-officio Sheriff of QC issued 3 receipts for
the seized properties. Anama filed a MFR but this was denied by the RTC. He then filed a petition for
certiorari and prohibition with writ of preliminary injunction with the CA on the ground that the resolutions
of the RTC 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. The CA
granted the petition.

Citibank filed its petition for review on certiorari with the SC assailing the CA’s decision. The SC dismissed
this petition for lack of merit and affirmed the decision of the CA.

During the pendency of Anama’s petition with the CA, the records of Citibank’s first complaint were
destroyed by fire. Anama filed a petition for reconstruction of record in the RTC, which it granted. Considering
that Citibank’s petition for review on certiorari was already pending, the RTC issued an order directing that
all pending incidents in Citibank’s complaint be suspended until the petition was resolved.

Anama, 10 years from the entry of the CA’s decision, filed a petition for revival of judgment with the CA,
seeking to revive the CA’s decision. He argued that Citibank’s failure to file an action for the reconstitution
 UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW Civil Procedure
Dizon (E2024) Professor Avena
of the records in the civil case constituted abandonment of its cause of action and complaint. Anama also
sought to remand the case to the RTC for further proceedings, particularly re: his counterclaims.

In its comments, Citibank argued that the petition should be dismissed as an action for revival of judgment is
within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the RTC. It also argued that laches has set against Anama for
having slept on his rights for almost 10 years, and that Citibank did not abandon its money claim when it did
not initiate the reconstitution proceedings in the RTC.

The CA denied the petition for lack of jurisdiction, finding in favor of Citibank. It ruled that while the petition
was filed within 10 years from the entry of the decision, it should have been filed with the appropriate RTC
which has exclusive original jurisdiction over all civil actions in which the subject of litigation is incapable of
pecuniary estimation and/or all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or
body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions.

Anama filed his MFR which the CA denied, so he filed this petition with the SC arguing that his petition for
revival of judgment should be filed in the court that issued the judgment sought to be revived. In its comment,
Citibank agreed with the CA that jurisdiction over actions for revival of judgments is with the RTC, and
argued that Anama’s petition to revive judgment is already barred by laches and that it did not waive or
abandon its claim against Anama.

ISSUE/S & RATIO/S

W/N a petition for revival of judgment should be filed in the court that issued the judgment sought to
be revived—NO.
• An action to revive a judgment is an action whose exclusive purpose is to enforce a judgment which
could no longer be enforced by mere motion. Sec. 6 of Rule 39 provides that once a judgment becomes
final and executory, the prevailing party can have it executed as a matter of right by mere motion
within five years from the date of entry of judgment. If the prevailing party fails to have the decision
enforced by a motion after the lapse of five years, the said judgment is reduced to a right of action
which must be enforced by the institution of a complaint in a regular court within 10 years from the
time the judgment becomes final.
• A revival suit is a new action, having for its cause of action the judgment sought to be revived; it is
different and distinct from the original judgment sought to be revived. Revival of judgment is premised
on the assumption that the decision to be revived, either by motion or by independent action, is already
final and executory.
o 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.
o As this action raises issues of whether petitioner has a right to have the final and executory
judgment revived and to have that judgment enforced and does not involve recovery of a sum
of money, the jurisdiction over a petition like this is with the RTC. The CA, in this case, is
without jurisdiction to hear and decide an action for revival of judgment.
• There is no more reason to discuss whether laches has set in against Anama, as the Court has already
decided on the jurisdiction.

RULING
Petition DENIED. CA decision AFFIRMED. RTC directed to proceed with the hearing and disposition in the
case with all deliberate dispatch.