Montehermoso vs. Batuto

A decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable and may no longer be modified in any respect, even to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law, whether by the court that rendered it or by the Highest Court of the land.

Petitioners Marilyn B. Montehermoso, Tanny B. Montehermoso, Emma B. Montehermoso Oliveros, Eva B. Montehermoso, Teresa B. Montehermoso Carig, and Salvar B. Montehermoso were the holders of OCT No. 5781. Respondents Romeo Batuto and Arnel Batuto claimed ownership of a 44,410-square meter parcel which had been erroneously included in that title.

To vindicate their claim, respondents filed a complaint for cancellation of title, reconveyance, and damages. After trial, the Regional Trial Court found merit in respondents' claim and by Decision dated March 8, 2015 ordered reconveyance of the disputed property to them.

Thereafter, petitioners launched successive attacks against the trial court decision over more than five years. Their appeal was dismissed on August 5, 2016, with finality on September 9, 2016, and writs of execution and demolition were issued and implemented. About a year later, petitioner Tanny Montehermoso alone filed a petition for relief from judgment, which was dismissed on September 27, 2017 with reconsideration denied on April 24, 2018, followed by denial of a petition for review on certiorari on August 6, 2018. Petitioners then filed a petition for annulment of judgment before the Court of Appeals on the ground of alleged lack of jurisdiction, which was dismissed on February 13, 2019 with reconsideration denied on April 10, 2019, leading to the present Rule 45 recourse.

• Lack of Jurisdiction as Ground for Annulment: Petitioners argued that the trial court's judgment was subject to annulment because the trial court allegedly lacked jurisdiction over the case.

• Immutability of Final Judgment: Whether the RTC Decision dated March 8, 2015, which became final and executory on September 9, 2016 and was already implemented, may still be attacked through successive remedies.
• Annulment of Judgment: Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for annulment of judgment anchored on alleged lack of jurisdiction.

• Immutability of Final Judgment: No. The judgment had long attained finality and became immutable and unalterable, barring any further modification even to correct alleged errors of fact and law.
• Annulment of Judgment: Yes. Dismissal was proper, the petition being merely the latest in over five years of repeated attacks trifling with judicial process after finality and implementation.

• Immutability of Final Judgment: Under the doctrine of finality or immutability of judgment, a decision that has acquired finality may no longer be modified in any respect, even if modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law, whether by the rendering court or by the Highest Court, with any violating act to be struck down. Applied here, the March 8, 2015 reconveyance decision became final and executory on September 9, 2016 and writs of execution and demolition had already issued. Hence, the subsequent petition for relief, prior petition for review, and present petition for annulment could no longer disturb it, notwithstanding claims of error or lack of jurisdiction raised years later.
• Annulment of Judgment: Every litigation must come to an end; once rights are adjudicated in a valid final judgment, a litigant is not granted unbridled license to come back for another try and harass the prevailing party, for endless litigation multiplies unscrupulous suits to the detriment of justice. Petitioners, for over five years, never stopped attacking the decision before different fora through different modes of review despite finality and implementation, thereby mocking the judicial system and unjustifiably delaying enforcement to deny respondents the fruits of victory. Such pernicious revival attempts warranted denial, affirmance of the February 13, 2019 and April 10, 2019 Resolutions, and a stern warning of severe sanction for any further attempt in any form or forum, consistent with the reminder of counsel's duty to temper a client's propensity to litigate.

• Immutability of final judgment — A decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable and may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law, and whether made by the rendering court or by the Highest Court of the land; any act violating the principle must be struck down. The doctrine was applied to bar petitioners' successive appeal, petition for relief, petitions for review, and petition for annulment against the March 8, 2015 decision that became final on September 9, 2016 and had been executed.
• Termination of litigation; abuse of judicial process — While access to courts is guaranteed, there must be a limit; once rights are adjudicated in a valid final judgment, the losing party may not be granted unbridled license to relitigate and harass the prevailing party, as endless litigation prejudices the administration of justice. The repeated filings over five years to evade a final and implemented reconveyance judgment were condemned as trifling with judicial process, warranting denial and warning of sanctions, in line with Spouses Aguilar vs. The Manila Banking Corporation, Central Surety and Insurance Company vs. Planters Products, Inc., and Reyes vs. Alsons Development and Investment Corporation.
• Duty of counsel as officer of the court — A lawyer must ensure orderly administration of justice is not unduly impeded, advise a lay client on the merit or lack of merit of the case, advise acquiescence if the cause is defenseless, resist the client's whims and caprices, and temper the propensity to litigate, because the oath to uphold justice is superior to duty to the client. Petitioners' counsel, Atty. Belinda M. Nagui, was thus reminded of this primordial duty and sternly warned alongside petitioners against further revival attempts, consistent with V.C. Ponce Company, Inc. vs. Reyes.

• "Under the doctrine of finality of judgment or immutability of judgment, a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable, and may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law, and whether it be made by the court that rendered it or by the Highest Court of the land." — States the controlling ratio on immutability that barred all post-finality attacks on the reconveyance judgment.
• "It is an important fundamental principle in the judicial system that every litigation must come to an end. Access to the courts is guaranteed. But there must be a limit thereto. Once a litigant's rights have been adjudicated in a valid and final judgment of a competent court, he should not be granted an unbridled license to come back for another try." — Articulates the policy against endless relitigation invoked to condemn petitioners' five-year barrage of remedies.
• "Once a judgment becomes final and executory, the prevailing party should not be denied the fruits of his victory by some subterfuge devised by the losing party." — Defines why unjustified delay in enforcement through dilatory maneuvers was viewed with disfavor in denying the petition.

• Spouses Aguilar vs. The Manila Banking Corporation, 533 Phil. 645 (2006) — Cited as authority that litigation must end and a party adjudged in a valid final judgment may not be granted unbridled license to retry and harass the prevailing party.
• Central Surety and Insurance Company vs. Planters Products, Inc., 546 Phil. 479 (2007) — Cited where numerous motions and appeals delaying execution of a final RTC decision were treated as dilatory maneuvers warranting triple costs and warning of disciplinary sanctions.
• Reyes vs. Alsons Development and Investment Corporation, 546 Phil. 76 (2007) — Cited where trifling with forum shopping and res judicata rules to frustrate satisfaction of a final judgment led to warning of severe sanction for any revival.
• V.C. Ponce Company, Inc. vs. Reyes, 583 Phil. 644 (2008) — Cited for counsel's duty as officer of the court to avoid impeding orderly justice, resist client whims, and prioritize the oath to justice over duty to client.
• People vs. Santiago, G.R. No. 228819, July 24, 2019 — Cited as basis for the doctrine of finality or immutability of judgment stated at the outset.

• Rule 45, Rules of Court — Invoked as the mode of the final recourse assailing the Court of Appeals Resolutions dated February 13, 2019 and April 10, 2019 denying annulment of judgment; the petition thereunder was denied and the assailed Resolutions affirmed.

Gesmundo, J., Acting Chairperson, Lopez, J., Rosario, J.