Short answer. No. An action to annul a judgment or final order of a Municipal Trial Court is filed in the Regional Trial Court with jurisdiction over that MTC, treated as an ordinary civil action, with several of Rule 47's other sections applying by reference.

What the law says

An action to annul a judgment or final order of a Municipal Trial Court shall be filed in the Regional Trial Court having jurisdiction over the former. It shall be treated as an ordinary civil action and sections 2, 3 4, 7, 8 and 9 of this Rule shall be applicable thereto.

Rule 47, Section 10 — Annulment of judgments or final orders of Municipal Trial Courts. Read the full provision →

The Regional Trial Court, not the Court of Appeals

Section 1's coverage of Rule 47 is limited to RTC judgments, and Section 10 supplies the parallel route for lower court judgments. An action to annul a judgment or final order of a Municipal Trial Court shall be filed in the Regional Trial Court having jurisdiction over the former. The Court of Appeals is not the forum for annulling an MTC ruling.

Treated as an ordinary civil action

Unlike the more specialized original-action character of an annulment case filed with the Court of Appeals, this one shall be treated as an ordinary civil action once filed in the Regional Trial Court — following the general procedural track civil cases take at that level, rather than the screening-and-summons sequence Rule 47 otherwise sets for Court of Appeals annulment cases, and including the usual answer, pre-trial, and trial stages that any ordinary civil case follows.

Which sections still apply by cross-reference

Section 10 expressly borrows from the rest of Rule 47: sections 2, 3 4, 7, 8 and 9 of this Rule shall be applicable thereto. That carries over provisions like the effect of judgment, suspension of prescription, and available relief into this Regional Trial Court version of the remedy, even though the forum and general civil-action treatment differ from an annulment case filed with the Court of Appeals.

What does not carry over from the RTC-level track

Notably absent from the sections Section 10 lists is Section 5, the outright-dismissal-or-summons screening step that governs Court of Appeals annulment petitions, and Section 6, the delegated-evidence-reception mechanism used there. Because the action is treated as an ordinary civil action once filed with the Regional Trial Court, that court follows its usual civil procedure for handling the case rather than the specific screening and evidence-delegation steps Rule 47 built for Court of Appeals-level annulment cases specifically.

Who this binds and the risk of filing in the wrong court

Section 10 binds the Regional Trial Court with jurisdiction over the particular Municipal Trial Court whose judgment is being challenged — not just any Regional Trial Court a petitioner might prefer to file in. Filing this action with the Court of Appeals instead, or with a Regional Trial Court that does not have jurisdiction over the issuing MTC, does not satisfy Section 10's venue requirement, and a court without that jurisdictional link over the MTC in question has no authority to annul its judgment under this provision.

Related provisions

Note. Statute text quoted on this page is reproduced from the official enactment and is linked to the full provision. The explanation around it is general legal information from Vivas & Nobles Law Office, not legal advice. Whether it applies to your situation depends on facts only a lawyer reviewing them can assess.