Briones-Vasquez vs. Court of Appeals

A final and executory judgment is immutable and unalterable, and a motion for clarificatory judgment cannot be used to obtain a nunc pro tunc amendment unless it merely records judicial action actually taken but omitted from the record by inadvertence.

Maria Mendoza Vda. de Ocampo acquired land from Luisa Briones under a pacto de retro sale, with Briones reserving the right to repurchase until December 31, 1970. Upon Ocampo's death and the lapse of the repurchase period, her heirs filed a petition for consolidation of ownership, alleging failure to redeem. The RTC declared the contract a true pacto de retro sale but granted Briones 30 days from finality to redeem. The CA reversed, declaring the contract an equitable mortgage. The CA decision became final and executory on July 17, 1996. Briones deposited the redemption amount with the RTC, but the heirs refused to accept the deposit or execute the writ. Briones then sought clarification from the CA to declare the mortgage discharged and issue a writ of possession, which the CA denied.

• The Pacto de Retro Sale: Maria Mendoza Vda. de Ocampo acquired a parcel of land from Luisa Briones under an agreement denominated as a pacto de retro sale, with Briones reserving the right to repurchase the property up to December 31, 1970.
• Petition for Consolidation: Ocampo passed away on May 27, 1979. On June 14, 1990, her heirs filed a petition for consolidation of ownership, alleging that Briones failed to exercise the privilege to redeem the property within the stipulated period.
• Lower Court Rulings: The RTC declared the contract a true pacto de retro sale but granted Briones 30 days from finality to redeem. On appeal, the CA set aside the RTC decision and declared the contract an equitable mortgage. The CA decision became final and executory on July 17, 1996.
• Execution and Subsequent Motions: Briones deposited the redemption amount with the RTC. The RTC issued a writ of execution and, subsequently, an alias writ of execution. The sheriff reported that the heirs refused to sign the alias writ or withdraw the deposited amount necessary to release the mortgage. Unable to effect execution, Briones filed an omnibus motion in the RTC to declare the mortgage discharged and to obtain a writ of possession. The RTC denied the motion, ruling that it could no longer alter, modify, or add anything to the final CA decision. Briones then filed a motion for clarificatory judgment with the CA, which was likewise denied on the ground that the appellate court only ruled on the nature of the contract and not on the right to repossess.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Petitioner argued that the CA acted arbitrarily and with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in denying the motion for clarificatory judgment and the subsequent motion for reconsideration.
• Nunc Pro Tunc Amendment: Petitioner maintained that the motion for clarificatory judgment sought a nunc pro tunc amendment of the final CA decision to clarify the parties' rights regarding the discharge of the mortgage and possession of the property.

• Clarificatory Judgment Inappropriate: Respondents, consistent with the CA's reasoning, countered that the only issue on appeal was the nature of the contract, and any matters regarding the right to repossess the property must be addressed to the trial court.

• Immutability of Final Judgment: Whether the CA acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in denying the motion for clarificatory judgment despite the finality of its decision.
• Pactum Commissorium in Equitable Mortgages: Whether the mortgagee in an equitable mortgage can consolidate ownership upon the mortgagor's default without resorting to foreclosure.

• Immutability of Final Judgment: The CA committed no grave abuse of discretion. A final and executory judgment is immutable and unalterable, except for clerical errors, nunc pro tunc entries causing no prejudice, or void judgments. A nunc pro tunc amendment merely records judicial action actually taken but omitted from the record by inadvertence; it cannot supply omitted action or correct judicial errors. Because the motion sought to add to the judgment, the CA correctly denied it.
• Pactum Commissorium in Equitable Mortgages: Because the contract was declared an equitable mortgage, Article 2088 of the Civil Code applies. Consolidation of ownership in the mortgagee upon the mortgagor's mere default constitutes a prohibited pactum commissorium. The mortgagee's only right is to foreclose the mortgage and have the property sold to satisfy the debt. Since the heirs did not foreclose, Briones retains ownership and the right to possess the property.

• Immutable Judgment Rule — Final and executory judgments are immutable and unalterable. They may no longer be modified in any respect, even to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law. The only exceptions are: (a) correction of clerical errors; (b) nunc pro tunc entries causing no prejudice; and (c) void judgments.
• Nunc Pro Tunc Judgments — A nunc pro tunc entry records judicial action actually taken at a former time but not carried into the record. It makes the record speak the truth of what actually occurred, not what ought to have occurred. It cannot supply omitted action by the court or correct judicial errors.
• Pactum Commissorium — Under Article 2088 of the Civil Code, the creditor cannot appropriate the things given by way of pledge or mortgage, or dispose of them, upon the debtor's default. Consolidation of ownership in the mortgagee by mere default is prohibited. The mortgagee's sole remedy is foreclosure.

• "The office of a judgment nunc pro tunc is to record some act of the court done at a former time which was not then carried into the record, and the power of a court to make such entries is restricted to placing upon the record evidence of judicial action which has been actually taken."
• "The essence of pacto commissorio, which is prohibited by Article 2088 of the Civil Code, is that ownership of the security will pass to the creditor by the mere default of the debtor."
• "The only right of a mortgagee in case of non-payment of a debt secured by mortgage would be to foreclose the mortgage and have the encumbered property sold to satisfy the outstanding indebtedness."

• Nuñal v. CA, 221 SCRA 26 (1993) — Cited as controlling precedent for the immutable judgment rule.
• Lichauco v. Tan Pho, 51 Phil. 862 (1923) — Cited as controlling precedent for the definition and limitations of nunc pro tunc judgments.
• Montevergin v. CA, 112 SCRA 641 (1982) — Cited as controlling precedent for the application of pactum commissorium to equitable mortgages, establishing that consolidation of ownership is inappropriate and foreclosure is the sole remedy.
• Northern Motors, Inc. v. Herrera, 49 SCRA 392 (1973) — Cited for the definition of pacto commissorio under Article 2088.
• Guanzon v. Argel, 33 SCRA 474 (1970) — Cited for the rule that mortgagor's default does not vest ownership in the mortgagee.

• Article 2088, Civil Code — Prohibits the creditor from appropriating the things given by way of pledge or mortgage, or disposing of them. Applied to prevent the consolidation of ownership in the mortgagee upon the mortgagor's default.
• Rule 65, Rules of Civil Procedure — Governs the petition for certiorari filed by the petitioner to assail the CA resolutions for grave abuse of discretion.

Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, and Carpio, JJ.