Certantes vs. Court of Appeals

A motion for reconsideration is an indispensable condition to a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, and the petitioner must show a concrete, compelling, and valid reason to dispense with it; failure to do so warrants dismissal. A final and executory judgment is immutable and unalterable and may not be modified by a subsequent motion, except for clerical errors, nunc pro tunc entries, or void judgments.

Petitioner Elmer F. Cervantes and private respondent Pilar S. Antonio (formerly Pilar A. Cervantes) were spouses whose marriage was annulled by the Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City, Branch 276. The controversy concerns the liquidation of their conjugal properties after the annulment and petitioner's later attempt to forfeit private respondent's share in the net profits for the common children and to have the Ayala Alabang conjugal residence adjudicated to him under Articles 40, 43(2), 50, and 129(9) of the Family Code. The procedural question implicates Rule 65 of the Rules of Court on certiorari and the requirement of a prior motion for reconsideration.

On December 6, 1995, Elmer F. Cervantes filed a petition for annulment of marriage and custody of minor children against Pilar S. Antonio (formerly Pilar A. Cervantes) before the Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City, Branch 276, docketed as Civil Case No. 95-194. On December 13, 1996, the trial court granted the annulment based on private respondent's psychological incapacity, awarded petitioner custody of the minor children, and ordered the liquidation of the conjugal properties.

Private respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration/New Trial and to Admit Answer, which the trial court granted on February 12, 1997; she was also awarded visitation rights over the minor children. Petitioner moved to reconsider that order, and on October 10, 1997, the trial court set aside the February 12, 1997 Order, affirmed the December 13, 1996 Resolution granting the annulment, and directed the parties to submit an inventory of their conjugal assets. Private respondent submitted an inventory that included the Ayala Alabang Village house and lot. Petitioner manifested that the conjugal abode be adjudicated in his favor because he had been awarded custody of the children and private respondent had been adjudged to be the party in bad faith.

On August 4, 1999, the trial court ordered that the conjugal properties—including the conjugal abode, certificate of stock, and motor vehicle—be sold and the proceeds divided equally between the parties. On October 20, 1999, private respondent filed a motion for execution of the August 4, 1999 Resolution, while on November 18, 1999, petitioner prayed for its reconsideration. On March 15, 2000, the trial court declared the August 4, 1999 Resolution final, and a writ of execution was issued on March 17, 2000. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals seeking to annul the August 4, 1999 Resolution and the March 17, 2000 Writ of Execution. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, holding that the August 4, 1999 Resolution had long become final and executory for failure of petitioner to file a timely motion for reconsideration or appeal; it also denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 144810, but on June 9, 2003, the Third Division denied the petition for lack of merit.

On September 22, 2003, petitioner filed a motion for the forfeiture of private respondent's share in the net profits of the conjugal properties in favor of the common children and to adjudicate the Ayala Alabang residence to him pursuant to Articles 40, 43(2), 50, and 129(9) of the Family Code. The trial court denied the motion in an Order dated August 2, 2004, holding that the August 4, 1999 Order directing equal division of the conjugal properties could not be superseded because it had already become final, affirmed by the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. Petitioner then filed a Manifestation and Motion clarifying that his September 22, 2003 filing was a motion to forfeit private respondent's share in the net profits and not a motion to amend an order, and praying that the motion be resolved. On August 27, 2004, the trial court denied the manifestation and motion, ruling that the decision had long become final and executory and that the court had lost jurisdiction; it stated that if petitioner intended to forfeit the declared share, he should file a new complaint, because granting the forfeiture through the motion would reopen the case and the final decision.

Instead of filing a motion for reconsideration, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. On November 22, 2004, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition outright for insufficiency in form and substance, noting that no motion for reconsideration of the August 27, 2004 Order had been filed and that no explanation or justification had been alleged to show that the order was final rather than interlocutory or to dispense with the motion for reconsideration. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied on January 13, 2005, prompting the present petition for review.

• Futility of Prior Motion for Reconsideration: Petitioner contended that filing a motion for reconsideration before resorting to certiorari would be futile because the trial court had already ordered the execution of the judgment, citing Guevarra vs. Court of Appeals.
• Opportunity to Correct: Petitioner claimed that the trial court was amply given an opportunity to correct itself when he filed the Manifestation and Motion clarifying the August 2, 2004 Order.

• Motion for Reconsideration as Indispensable Condition: Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for certiorari for petitioner's failure to file a motion for reconsideration of the August 27, 2004 Order and for failure to allege or justify any exception to the requirement.
• Futility Exception: Whether petitioner's claim that a motion for reconsideration would be futile because the trial court had ordered execution of judgment, citing Guevarra vs. Court of Appeals, excused compliance with the motion-for-reconsideration requirement.
• Final and Executory Judgment: Whether the trial court correctly denied petitioner's manifestation and motion to forfeit private respondent's share and adjudicate the conjugal residence to him, given that the August 4, 1999 Resolution had become final and executory.

• Motion for Reconsideration as Indispensable Condition: No. Under Section 1, Rule 65, certiorari lies only when there is no appeal or plain, speedy, adequate remedy; a motion for reconsideration is that remedy and an indispensable condition, subject to exceptions. Petitioner failed to file one and failed to explain or justify any exception.
• Futility Exception: No. Guevarra permits dispensing with a motion for reconsideration in urgent cases such as execution, but the petitioner must clearly show a concrete, compelling, and valid reason; petitioner did not.
• Final and Executory Judgment: No. The August 4, 1999 Resolution had long become final and executory; the motion to forfeit would modify the final liquidation, and final judgments are immutable and unalterable absent clerical errors, nunc pro tunc entries, or void judgments.

• Motion for Reconsideration as Indispensable Condition: Section 1, Rule 65 allows certiorari only when there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. As held in Flores vs. Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Pampanga, the plain and adequate remedy is a motion for reconsideration of the assailed order or resolution, and its filing is an indispensable condition to a special civil action for certiorari, subject to exceptions. The records, particularly the petition for certiorari filed with the Court of Appeals, showed that petitioner failed to explain his failure to file a motion for reconsideration of the August 27, 2004 Order and failed to show sufficient justification for dispensing with the requirement. He also did not show that the case fell under any exception. His explanations appeared only in his motion for reconsideration of the Court of Appeals' November 22, 2004 Resolution and in the instant petition, which was too late. Thus, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition.

• Futility Exception: A writ of certiorari is a prerogative writ, never demandable as a matter of right and never issued except in the exercise of judicial discretion; a petitioner must apply for it strictly in accordance with law and the Rules. Petitioner may not arrogate to himself the determination of whether a motion for reconsideration is necessary. To dispense with the requirement, he must show a concrete, compelling, and valid reason. Although Guevarra vs. Court of Appeals held that a motion for reconsideration may be dispensed with in cases of urgency like when the trial court had ordered execution of the judgment, that circumstance must be clearly shown by the petitioner as a concrete, compelling, and valid reason, not left for the courts to ascertain. Petitioner failed to make such a showing.

• Final and Executory Judgment: Even assuming the certiorari petition could be given due course despite the absence of a prior motion for reconsideration, dismissal was still proper because the trial court's decision had long become final and executory. The manifestation and motion to forfeit private respondent's share had the ultimate effect of modifying the decision regarding the liquidation of the conjugal properties. When a final judgment is executory, it becomes immutable and unalterable and may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct a perceived erroneous conclusion of fact or law, whether by the court rendering it or by the highest Court. The doctrine rests on public policy and sound practice that judgments must become final at some definite point. The only recognized exceptions are correction of clerical errors, nunc pro tunc entries causing no prejudice, and void judgments; none was present. Thus, the trial court correctly denied the motion.

• Motion for Reconsideration as an Indispensable Condition to Certiorari — Under Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, certiorari is available only when there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. A motion for reconsideration is the plain and adequate remedy and its filing is an indispensable condition to a special civil action for certiorari, subject to the exceptions enumerated in Flores vs. Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Pampanga: (a) where the order is a patent nullity because the court a quo has no jurisdiction; (b) where the questions raised in certiorari were duly raised and passed upon by the lower court, or are the same as those raised and passed upon; (c) where there is urgent necessity for resolution and further delay would prejudice the Government, the petitioner, or a perishable subject matter; (d) where a motion for reconsideration would be useless; (e) where the petitioner was deprived of due process and there is extreme urgency for relief; (f) where, in a criminal case, relief from an order of arrest is urgent and improbable from the trial court; (g) where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack of due process; (h) where the proceedings were ex parte or the petitioner had no opportunity to object; and (i) where the issue raised is purely of law or public interest is involved. The Court applied this doctrine by dismissing the petition because petitioner neither filed the required motion for reconsideration nor showed that any exception applied.
• Certiorari as a Prerogative Writ — A writ of certiorari is never demandable as a matter of right and is never issued except in the exercise of judicial discretion. A petitioner must apply for it strictly in accordance with law and the Rules and may not arrogate to himself the determination of whether a motion for reconsideration is necessary. To dispense with the motion for reconsideration, the petitioner must show a concrete, compelling, and valid reason. The Court found that petitioner failed to make such a showing.
• Immutability of Final and Executory Judgments — When a judgment becomes final and executory, it becomes immutable and unalterable and may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct a perceived erroneous conclusion of fact or law, whether by the court rendering it or by the highest Court. The doctrine rests on public policy and sound practice that judgments must become final at some definite point. The recognized exceptions are correction of clerical errors, nunc pro tunc entries that cause no prejudice, and void judgments. The Court applied this doctrine because petitioner's motion to forfeit private respondent's share would modify the final liquidation of the conjugal properties, and no exception was present.
• Guevarra Exception to the Motion for Reconsideration Requirement — A motion for reconsideration may be dispensed with in cases of urgency, such as when the trial court has ordered execution of the judgment, but the petitioner must clearly show that circumstance as a concrete, compelling, and valid reason; it cannot be left for the courts to ascertain. The Court held that petitioner's reliance on Guevarra vs. Court of Appeals was misplaced because he failed to make the required showing.

• "No motion for reconsideration to the assailed August 27, 2004 Order was filed by petitioner before resorting to this petition. Furthermore, no explanation had been alleged to show that the assailed August 27, 2004 Order is a final order as opposed to a mere interlocutory order. There is no allegation and justification on why the filing of a motion for reconsideration was dispensed with." — This passage, quoted from the Court of Appeals' assailed resolution, states the procedural defect that justified the outright dismissal of the certiorari petition.
• "It must be emphasized that a writ of certiorari is a prerogative writ, never demandable as a matter of right, never issued except in the exercise of judicial discretion. Hence, he who seeks a writ of certiorari must apply for it only in the manner and strictly in accordance with the provisions of the law and the Rules." — This is the Court's canonical formulation of the prerogative nature of certiorari and the strict compliance required of petitioners.
• "Nothing is more settled in law than that when a final judgment is executory, it thereby becomes immutable and unalterable. The judgment may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law, and regardless of whether the modification is attempted to be made by the court rendering it or by the highest Court of the land." — This passage states the ratio decidendi on the immutability of final judgments, which independently barred petitioner's motion to forfeit.
• "Although we held in Guevarra that a motion for reconsideration may be dispensed with in cases of urgency like when the trial court had ordered the execution of the judgment, this circumstance must be clearly shown by the petitioner as a concrete, compelling and valid reason, and not just leave it for the courts to ascertain." — This passage clarifies the limited scope of the Guevarra exception and explains why petitioner's reliance on it failed.

• Guevarra vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. L-49017 & L-49024, August 30, 1983, 124 SCRA 297 — Cited by petitioner to justify dispensing with a motion for reconsideration; the Court distinguished/limited it by holding that the urgency must be clearly shown as a concrete, compelling, and valid reason.
• Flores vs. Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Pampanga, G.R. No. 159022, February 23, 2005, 452 SCRA 278 — Controlling precedent relied on by the Court for the rule that a motion for reconsideration is the plain and adequate remedy and an indispensable condition to certiorari, subject to exceptions.
• Acance vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 159699, March 16, 2005, 453 SCRA 548 — Cited in the decision for the enumeration of exceptions to the motion-for-reconsideration requirement.
• Nayve vs. Court of Appeals, 446 Phil. 473 (2003) — Cited for the rule that certiorari is a prerogative writ, never demandable as a matter of right, and must be sought strictly in accordance with law and the Rules.
• Mayon Estate Corporation vs. Altura, G.R. No. 134462, October 18, 2004, 440 SCRA 377 — Cited for the exceptions to the immutability of final judgments: clerical errors, nunc pro tunc entries, and void judgments.

• Section 1, Rule 65, Rules of Court — Provides that certiorari lies when a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The Court applied it by treating a motion for reconsideration as the plain, speedy, and adequate remedy and an indispensable condition to certiorari.
• Articles 40, 43(2), 50, and 129(9), Family Code — Cited in the factual recital as the basis of petitioner's September 22, 2003 motion for forfeiture of private respondent's share in net profits and adjudication of the conjugal residence. The Court resolved the case on procedural grounds and did not apply these provisions substantively.

Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr.; Associate Justices Leonardo A. Quisumbing, Antonio T. Carpio, and Adolfo S. Azcuna.