Magno vs. Magno

A final and executory judgment is immutable and unalterable, and a writ of execution must conform strictly to the dispositive portion of the decision; however, a nunc pro tunc entry may be made to supply an omission in the record of action actually taken, but not to supply omitted action by the court. The Court held that where the body of a decision clearly ruled that certain properties should be partitioned but the dispositive portion omitted them, the proper remedy is not a new action (barred by res judicata) nor a motion for execution (which must conform to the fallo), but a nunc pro tunc judgment to make the record speak the truth.

The parties are the successors-in-interest of the late Nicolas Magno, who died intestate in 1907, leaving properties that remained undivided among his heirs from two marriages. The heirs from the first marriage with Eugenia Recaido are represented by petitioners, while the heirs from the second marriage with Camila Asinger are represented by respondents. The dispute concerns three parcels of land covered by Tax Declaration Nos. 4246, 4249, and 13385, which were originally owned by Nicolas Magno under Original Tax Declaration No. 2221. Because Nicolas Magno died before the effectivity of the New Civil Code, the distribution of his estate is governed by the Civil Code of Spain of 1889, under which his children inherit in equal shares.

Petitioners Elpidio Magno, the heirs of Isidro M. Cabatic, and Odelito M. Bugayong are the successors-in-interest of Doroteo Magno, the legitimate child of Nicolas Magno by his first wife, Eugenia Recaido. Respondents Lorenzo, Nicolas, Petra, Marciano, Isidro, Teodista, and Estrella, all surnamed Magno, and the De Guzman respondents, are the successors-in-interest of Nicetas Magno, Gavino Magno, and Nazaria Magno, the legitimate children of Nicolas by his second wife, Camila Asinger. Nicolas Magno died intestate in 1907, leaving properties that remained undivided among his heirs.

On January 30, 1964, Gavino Magno, et al. filed an Amended Complaint for partition with damages before the CFI of Alaminos, Pangasinan, docketed as Civil Case No. A-413, seeking partition of seven parcels of land left by Nicolas Magno. In their Amended Answer with Counterclaim dated March 4, 1964, Teofilo Magno, et al., the predecessors-in-interest of petitioners, sought partition of three additional parcels of land covered by Tax Declaration Nos. 4246, 4249, and 13385, which were originally owned by Nicolas Magno under Original Tax Declaration No. 2221.

On October 5, 1972, the CFI granted the amended complaint but failed to include the three counterclaim properties in the dispositive portion of its Decision. The fallo ordered the partition of the properties described in the amended complaint in four equal parts, but was silent as to the three properties subject of the counterclaim. On June 30, 1981, the CA affirmed the CFI Decision in toto, ruling in the body of its decision that "the lands covered by Tax Declaration Nos. 4246, 4249 and 13385 were owned by the late Nicolas Magno and must be brought into the mass of his estate," but likewise failed to order their partition in the dispositive portion. The CA Decision became final and executory on September 22, 1981.

Thereafter, Gavino Magno, et al. filed a Motion for Execution, which the CFI granted. Teofilo Magno, et al. filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court, which was dismissed on July 31, 1987 for lack of merit. On May 24, 1990, Elpidio Magno, et al., as successors-in-interest of Teofilo Magno, et al., filed a Complaint for partition, accounting, and damages before the RTC of Alaminos, Pangasinan, docketed as Civil Case No. A-1850, seeking partition of the three properties covered by Tax Declaration Nos. 4246, 4249, and 13385, which were in the possession of respondents' predecessors-in-interest. Respondents moved to dismiss on the ground of res judicata, prescription, and laches, but the RTC denied the motion. In their Answer with Counterclaim, respondents averred that their refusal to partition was founded on open, continuous, exclusive, and adverse possession by their predecessors-in-interest.

On November 15, 2007, the RTC granted the amended complaint, ruling that since the three parcels were acquired by Nicolas Magno and his first wife Eugenia Recaido, the plaintiffs were entitled to one-half of each parcel as the share of the first wife, with the other half divided into four shares. The RTC also ordered accounting of fruits from 1957 and awarded ₱100,000.00 in actual damages and attorney's fees. On appeal, the CA reversed and dismissed the complaint on the ground of res judicata, holding that the subject properties had already been adjudicated in Civil Case No. A-413, which had become final and executory.

• No Identity of Subject Matter: Petitioners argued that res judicata cannot apply because there is no identity of subject matter between Civil Case No. A-413, where their predecessors-in-interest sought partition of the three properties by way of counterclaim, and Civil Case No. A-1850, where they prayed for partition of the same properties which were omitted from the dispositive portions of the CFI and CA decisions.

• Right to Demand Partition: Petitioners argued that to deny their right to demand partition of properties which remain co-owned on the ground of res judicata would sacrifice justice to technicality, citing Article 494 of the New Civil Code which gives every co-owner the right to demand partition at any time.

• Incomplete Partition: Petitioners invoked Article 1103 of the New Civil Code, arguing that a decision or order of partition does not really become final in the sense that it leaves something more to be done for the complete disposition of the case, and that respondents should not be allowed to exclusively appropriate properties owned in common.

• Law of the Case: Petitioners submitted that the CA's finding that the subject properties were owned by the late Nicolas Magno and must be brought to the mass of his estate becomes the law of the present case which must not be disturbed as a matter of judicial comity.

• Res Judicata: Respondents argued that the filing of another complaint for partition in Civil Case No. A-1850 cannot be sanctioned without doing violence to the doctrine of res judicata.

• Immutability of Judgments: Respondents further argued that the second action violates the rule on immutability of judgments, as the decision in Civil Case No. A-413 had already become final and executory.

• Res Judicata: Whether the CA correctly dismissed the complaint in Civil Case No. A-1850 on the ground of res judicata, given that the three properties were omitted from the dispositive portion of the decision in Civil Case No. A-413.

• Proper Remedy: Whether the CA erred in stating that petitioners should have filed a writ of execution to enforce the final and executory decision in Civil Case No. A-413, considering that the three properties were not included in the dispositive portion.

• Nunc Pro Tunc Entry: Whether a nunc pro tunc judgment should be entered in Civil Case No. A-413 to include the three omitted properties in the partition and accounting.

• Res Judicata: Yes. All four requisites of res judicata under the concept of bar by prior judgment are present: the judgment in Civil Case No. A-413 is final, rendered by a court with jurisdiction, on the merits, and there is identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action between the two cases.

• Proper Remedy: No. The CA erred in stating that petitioners should have filed a writ of execution, because a writ of execution must substantially conform to the dispositive portion of the promulgated decision and cannot vary or go beyond the terms of the judgment.

• Nunc Pro Tunc Entry: Yes. The interest of justice would be best served by entering a nunc pro tunc judgment in Civil Case No. A-413 to order the partition and accounting of the three properties under the same terms as those indicated in the dispositive portion of the CFI Decision.

• Res Judicata: The Court explained that res judicata means "a matter adjudged; a thing judicially acted upon or decided; a thing or matter settled by judgment." It has two concepts: bar by prior judgment under Rule 39, Section 47(b), and conclusiveness of judgment under Rule 39, Section 47(c). For bar by prior judgment, there must be identity of parties, subject matter, and cause of action in the first and second actions. The Court found that the first two requisites — finality of judgment and jurisdiction — were undisputed, as the parties did not dispute that the trial court had jurisdiction over Civil Case No. A-413 and that the decision had become final and executory on September 22, 1981. The third requisite was satisfied because the CFI Decision was rendered based on the evidence and stipulations submitted by the parties. As to the fourth requisite, the Court found identity of subject matter and causes of action: the three properties covered by Tax Declaration Nos. 4246, 4249, and 13385 were the same properties subject of the counterclaim in Civil Case No. A-413 and the amended complaint in Civil Case No. A-1850. The Court quoted the counterclaim in Civil Case No. A-413, which sought partition of the same three properties, and the amended complaint in Civil Case No. A-1850, which prayed for partition of the same parcels. Since all requisites were present, the CA correctly dismissed the amended complaint.

• Proper Remedy: The Court held that the CA erred in stating that petitioners should have filed a writ of execution. It is well settled that a writ of execution must substantially conform to the dispositive portion of the promulgated decision, and cannot vary or go beyond the terms of the judgment; otherwise, it becomes null and void. Here, both the bodies of the CFI Decision and the CA Decision confirmed that the three properties belong to the late Nicolas Magno, but they were not included in the dispositive portions. Thus, it would be pointless to require petitioners to file a motion for execution, because the trial court would simply deny it since the only portion of the final decision that becomes the subject of execution is that ordained in the dispositive portion.

• Nunc Pro Tunc Entry: The Court explained that when a final judgment becomes executory, it becomes immutable and unalterable, and may no longer be modified in any respect. However, there are three recognized exceptions: (a) correction of clerical error; (b) making of nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party; and (c) where the judgment is void. The Court explained the concept of nunc pro tunc judgment: its office is to record some act of the court done at a former time which was not then carried into the record, and to make the record speak the truth, but not to make it speak what it did not speak but ought to have spoken. The Court found that the interest of justice would be best served by entering a nunc pro tunc judgment in Civil Case No. A-413, because it is undisputed that the three properties are still undivided and considered part of the estate of Nicolas Magno, and the CFI failed to include in the dispositive portion its ruling that these properties should be partitioned. The Court quoted the pertinent portions of the CFI Decision, which stated that "there is nothing more left for the Court to resolve than to order the partition of the properties in question" and that the properties "by agreed preponderance of evidence were shown to be owned by the decedent, Nicolas Magno." The Court also quoted the CA Decision, which ruled that "the lands covered by Tax Declaration Nos. 4246, 4249 and 13385 were owned by the late Nicolas Magno and must be brought into the mass of his estate." The Court held that although petitioners failed to raise the nunc pro tunc issue at any stage, the interest of justice impels the Court to consider and resolve it because it is necessary for the complete adjudication of the rights and obligations of the parties. The Court further held that no prejudice to any party would be caused by a nunc pro tunc entry, as Article 494 of the New Civil Code explicitly states that no co-owner shall be obliged to remain in the co-ownership, and each co-owner may demand at any time the partition of the thing owned in common.

• Res Judicata (Bar by Prior Judgment) — A final judgment or decree rendered on the merits, without fraud or collusion, by a court of competent jurisdiction, is conclusive of the rights of the parties or their privies in all other actions on the points and matters in issue in the first suit. The requisites are: (1) the judgment sought to bar the new action must be final; (2) the decision must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) the disposition of the case must be a judgment on the merits; and (4) there must be identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action between the first and second actions. The Court applied this doctrine to bar the second action for partition, finding all four requisites present.

• Res Judicata (Conclusiveness of Judgment) — Under Rule 39, Section 47(c), in any other litigation between the same parties or their successors-in-interest, only that is deemed to have been adjudged in a former judgment which appears upon its face to have been so adjudged, or which was actually and necessarily included therein or necessary thereto. This concept applies when there is identity of parties and subject matter but the causes of action are completely distinct.

• Immutability of Final Judgments — When a final judgment becomes executory, it becomes immutable and unalterable, and 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. The underlying reasons are: (1) to avoid delay in the administration of justice and make orderly the discharge of judicial business, and (2) to put judicial controversies to an end, at the risk of occasional errors. The recognized exceptions are: (a) correction of clerical error; (b) making of nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party; and (c) where the judgment is void.

• Nunc Pro Tunc Judgment — 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. It may be used to make the record speak the truth, but not to make it speak what it did not speak but ought to have spoken. Its object is not the rendering of a new judgment, but placing in proper form on the record the judgment that had been previously rendered. The Court applied this doctrine to include the three omitted properties in the partition ordered in Civil Case No. A-413, since the CFI and CA had clearly ruled on them in the body of their decisions.

• Right to Demand Partition — Under Article 494 of the New Civil Code, no co-owner shall be obliged to remain in the co-ownership, and each co-owner may demand at any time the partition of the thing owned in common, insofar as his share is concerned. The Court relied on this provision to justify the nunc pro tunc entry, holding that no prejudice would be caused since the co-owners cannot be compelled to remain in co-ownership.

• "Res judicata means 'a matter adjudged; a thing judicially acted upon or decided; a thing or matter settled by judgment.' It lays the rule that an existing final judgment or decree rendered on the merits, without fraud or collusion, by a court of competent jurisdiction, upon any matter within its jurisdiction, is conclusive of the rights of the parties or their privies, in all other actions or suits in the same or any other judicial tribunal of concurrent jurisdiction on the points and matters in issue in the first suit." — This passage defines the doctrine of res judicata and its foundational grounds, which the Court applied to bar the second action for partition.

• "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. It may be used to make the record speak the truth, but not to make it speak what it did not speak but ought to have spoken." — This passage defines the concept of nunc pro tunc judgment, which the Court used to include the three omitted properties in the partition ordered in Civil Case No. A-413.

• "It is well settled that a writ of execution must substantially conform to the dispositive portion of the promulgated decision, and cannot vary or go beyond the terms of the judgment; otherwise, it becomes null and void." — This passage states the rule that a writ of execution must conform to the fallo of the decision, which the Court used to reject the CA's suggestion that petitioners should have filed a motion for execution.

• "No co-owner shall be obliged to remain in the co-ownership. Each co-owner may demand at any time the partition of the thing owned in common, insofar as his share is concerned." — This passage quotes Article 494 of the New Civil Code, which the Court relied on to justify the nunc pro tunc entry, holding that no prejudice would be caused since the co-owners cannot be compelled to remain in co-ownership.

• Samson vs. Gabor, G.R. No. 182970, July 23, 2014, 730 SCRA 490 — Cited as the source of the Court's explanation of the doctrine of res judicata and its two concepts, bar by prior judgment and conclusiveness of judgment.

• Suyat vs. Gonzales-Tesoro, 513 Phil. 85, 95 (2005) — Cited for the rule that a writ of execution must substantially conform to the dispositive portion of the promulgated decision and cannot vary or go beyond the terms of the judgment.

• Mocorro, Jr. vs. Ramirez, 582 Phil. 357, 366 (2008) — Cited for the rule that when a final judgment becomes executory, it becomes immutable and unalterable.

• Navarro vs. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company, 612 Phil. 462, 471 (2009) — Cited for the underlying reasons for the rule on immutability of final judgments.

• Filipinos Palmoil Processing, Inc., et al. vs. Dejapa, 656 Phil. 589, 598 (2011) — Cited for the three recognized exceptions to the rule on immutability of final and executory judgments.

• Briones-Vctsquez vs. Court of Appeals, 491 Phil. 81, 92-93 (2005) — Cited for the explanation of the concept of nunc pro tunc judgment.

• Trinidad vs. Acapulco, 526 Phil. 154, 163-164 (2006) — Cited for the rule that the Court may consider and resolve an issue even though not particularly raised, when it is necessary for the complete adjudication of the rights and obligations of the parties.

• Magno vs. Court of Appeals, 236 Phil. 595, 599 (1987) — The earlier Supreme Court decision in G.R. No. 58781, which dismissed the petition for certiorari and ruled that the CA decision in Civil Case No. A-413 had become final and executory.

• Rule 39, Section 47(b), Rules of Court — The provision on bar by prior judgment, which provides that a judgment is conclusive between the parties and their successors-in-interest litigating for the same thing and under the same title and in the same capacity, as to the matter directly adjudged or any other matter that could have been raised in relation thereto. The Court applied this provision to bar the second action for partition.

• Rule 39, Section 47(c), Rules of Court — The provision on conclusiveness of judgment, which provides that only that which appears upon the face of the former judgment to have been adjudged, or which was actually and necessarily included therein or necessary thereto, is deemed adjudged. The Court distinguished this concept from bar by prior judgment.

• Article 494, New Civil Code — Provides that no co-owner shall be obliged to remain in the co-ownership, and each co-owner may demand at any time the partition of the thing owned in common. The Court relied on this provision to justify the nunc pro tunc entry, holding that no prejudice would be caused since the co-owners cannot be compelled to remain in co-ownership.

• Article 1103, New Civil Code — Provides that the omission of one or more objects or securities of the inheritance shall not cause the rescission of the partition on the ground of lesion, but the partition shall be completed by the distribution of the objects or securities which have been omitted. Petitioners invoked this provision in support of their claim that a decision or order of partition does not really become final in the sense that it leaves something more to be done.

• Article 2263, New Civil Code — Provides that rights to an inheritance of a person who dies before the effectivity of the Code shall be governed by the Civil Code of Spain of 1889 and other previous laws. The CFI applied this provision in Civil Case No. A-413, since Nicolas Magno died in 1907.

• Article 931, Civil Code of Spain of 1889 — Provides that the children of the decedent inherit in equal shares. The CFI applied this provision in Civil Case No. A-413 to distribute the estate of Nicolas Magno among his four children.

Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Perez, Reyes, and Jardeleza, JJ., concurred.