Teh vs. Teh Tan

A final and executory judgment becomes immutable and unalterable and may no longer be modified in any respect, even to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law; certiorari will not lie as a substitute for a lost or lapsed appeal.

Spouses Teh Lin and Lim Ay Go had eight children and owned a 990-square-meter parcel of land in Sta. Mesa Heights, Quezon City, covered by TCT No. 37337. On January 29, 1971, Lim Ay Go executed a Deed of Donation Inter Vivos in favor of four of those children — Natividad, Teh Ki Huat, Teh Ki Tiat, and Victoria. On November 19, 1971, Teh Lin executed a separate Deed of Donation in favor of the same four children. Lim Ay Go died on May 7, 1973, and Teh Lin died on June 15, 1976.

Spouses Teh Lin and Lim Ay Go had eight children: Natividad, Teh Ki Huat, Teh Ki Tiat, Basilio, Victoria, Modesto, Marciano, and Peter. The couple owned a 990-square-meter parcel of land in Sta. Mesa Heights, Quezon City, covered by TCT No. 37337. On January 29, 1971, Lim Ay Go executed a Deed of Donation Inter Vivos in favor of Natividad, Teh Ki Huat, Teh Ki Tiat, and Victoria. On November 19, 1971, Teh Lin likewise executed a Deed of Donation in favor of the same four children. Lim Ay Go died on May 7, 1973, and Teh Lin died on June 15, 1976.

On September 13, 1994, TCT No. 37337 in the name of the spouses was cancelled and TCT No. 117548 was issued in Victoria's name alone. Thirteen days later, on September 26, 1994, Natividad, Teh Ki Tiat, and Jacinta Sia (representing Teh Ki Huat) filed a complaint before the RTC of Quezon City. They alleged that Victoria had surreptitiously and fraudulently procured the execution of a Deed of Donation dated March 20, 1971 covering their parents' property in her favor alone, to the exclusion of the other donees. They further alleged that the signatures of Teh Lin and Lim Ay Go on that deed were forged, noting that Lim Ay Go was an illiterate Chinese woman who could not have signed the document. They prayed for annulment of TCT No. 117548 and issuance of a new title in their names and Victoria's as co-owners pro indiviso.

In her Answer, Victoria argued that respondents had no cause of action and that Natividad, Teh Ki Tiat, and Teh Ki Huat were not real children of the spouses. She claimed that, aside from herself, the only children and legal heirs were Basilio, Modesto, Marciano, and Peter. She also argued that even if the January 29 and November 19, 1971 Deeds of Donation were valid, they would only be valid as to her because she alone was a Filipino citizen among the four donees. She further asserted actual, public, adverse, and uninterrupted possession of the property since 1971, payment of real estate taxes, and a final 1981 court decision in her favor on a petition for issuance of a new owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. 37337. Finally, she claimed prescription barred respondents' claim of co-ownership.

Several motions for intervention were filed. Modesto, Peter, and Marciano were granted intervention on March 11, 1996, praying that the March 20, 1971 Deed be declared null and void and the property reconveyed to the estate of Teh Lin. Robert Teh, Margaret Teh Lin, Jane Teh, Rosie Teh Ong, and Nancy Teh Chan also filed a complaint in intervention as successors-in-interest of Teh Ki Huat. The RTC disregarded all complaints in intervention, leaving only Teh Ki Tiat as plaintiff. Natividad had died on March 7, 1995, and no substitution of her heirs was made.

On March 28, 2007, the RTC rendered judgment declaring the March 20, 1971 Deed of Donation null and void, cancelling TCT No. 117548, upholding the January 29 and November 19, 1971 Deeds of Donation as valid, and directing reinstatement of TCT No. 37337 in the name of the spouses. The RTC found the March 20, 1971 Deed spurious based on the uncontradicted testimony of a handwriting expert who found the signatures of Teh Lin on that deed were not affixed by the same person who signed the standard signatures used for comparison, and that portions of the deed were typed using different typewriters. Victoria received a copy of the decision on April 11, 2007 but did not appeal; the decision became final and executory on April 26, 2007.

Thereafter, respondents sought and obtained a writ of execution, which Victoria did not oppose. On June 25, 2007, Victoria filed a Manifestation praying that the RTC declare her the sole beneficiary of the November 19, 1971 Deed of Donation and that TCT No. 37337 be cancelled and a new TCT issued in her name. The RTC denied the Manifestation on September 5, 2007, noting the decision had become final and that, even assuming it retained jurisdiction, the decision could not be interpreted as entitling Victoria to sole ownership. Her Motion for Reconsideration was denied on November 14, 2007. The CA dismissed her petition for certiorari on January 10, 2008, holding that ruling on her prayer would alter a final judgment, and denied her Motion for Reconsideration on March 6, 2008.

• Abuse of Discretion by the CA: Petitioner argued that the CA gravely erred in dismissing outright her petition for certiorari without considering the explicit grounds stated therein, amounting to grave abuse of discretion.
• Entitlement as Sole Beneficiary: Petitioner contended that, based on the RTC's own discussion in its decision, she is the sole beneficiary of the November 19, 1971 Deed of Donation, and thus the RTC should have so declared and ordered cancellation of TCT No. 37337 and issuance of a new title in her name.
• Void Judgment Due to Non-Substitution: Petitioner asserted that the RTC judgment was null and void for failure to observe the rule on substitution of the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff Natividad Teh Tan, yet the CA ruled that she wanted to derive benefits from that allegedly void judgment.

• Finality of Judgment: Respondents pointed out that the RTC's March 28, 2007 decision had become final and executory and that petitioner's Manifestation was actually an appeal from that decision, which should be denied because the RTC had already lost jurisdiction.
• Improper Remedy: Respondents argued that petitioner's Manifestation called for a reexamination and reevaluation of evidence already considered by the RTC, going beyond mere clarification of the decision.

• Finality of Judgments: Whether the RTC decision, having become final and executory, could still be modified or clarified to declare petitioner the sole beneficiary of the November 19, 1971 Deed of Donation.
• Propriety of Certiorari: Whether the petition for certiorari was proper given that petitioner failed to appeal the RTC decision within the reglementary period.

• Finality of Judgments: No. The RTC decision had become final and executory and was immutable and unalterable; petitioner's Manifestation sought more than clarification and was in substance a motion for reconsideration of a final judgment.
• Propriety of Certiorari: No. Certiorari is a remedy of last resort and cannot substitute for a lapsed appeal, especially when the loss of the appeal was occasioned by the party's own negligence or error in the choice of remedy.

• Finality of Judgments: A judgment becomes final and executory by operation of law when the reglementary period to appeal lapses and no appeal is perfected. Petitioner herself admitted she did not appeal the RTC ruling. A final and executory decision becomes immutable and unalterable and may no longer be modified in any respect, even to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law. The recognized exceptions — correction of clerical errors, nunc pro tunc entries causing no prejudice, void judgments, and circumstances arising after finality rendering execution unjust — were none present. While a court may clarify an inadvertent omission in the dispositive portion based on the body of the decision, such action is limited to explaining a vague or equivocal part to enable proper execution; it cannot modify or overturn the decision in the guise of clarification. Petitioner's Manifestation prayed for affirmative relief declaring her sole beneficiary and cancellation of TCT No. 37337, which called for reexamination and reevaluation of evidence already considered — far beyond mere clarification.

• Propriety of Certiorari: A special civil action for certiorari is a limited form of review and a remedy of last recourse. The general rule is that certiorari will not issue where appeal is available; it cannot be allowed when a party fails to appeal despite availability of that remedy. Certiorari is not a substitute for a lapsed or lost appeal, especially when the party's own negligence or error in choice of remedy occasioned the loss. The recognized exceptions — public welfare, advancement of public policy, broader interests of justice, null writs, or oppressive exercise of judicial authority — were neither alleged nor proven by petitioner. The right to appeal is a statutory privilege that must be exercised according to the procedures laid down by law; perfection within the reglementary period is mandatory and jurisdictional. Failure to perfect an appeal renders the decision final and executory and deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction to alter the judgment.

• Doctrine of Immutability of Final Judgments — 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 or law, and whether made by the court that rendered it or by the highest court of the land. Once a judgment becomes final, all issues between the parties are deemed resolved and laid to rest; no additions can be made except to order execution. The only exceptions are: (1) correction of clerical errors, (2) nunc pro tunc entries causing no prejudice, (3) void judgments, and (4) circumstances transpiring after finality rendering execution unjust and inequitable. The Court applied this doctrine to bar petitioner's attempt to obtain affirmative relief after the RTC decision had become final.

• Clarification of Final Judgments — Even a final and executory judgment may be clarified or rectified by amendment when there is an inadvertent omission in the dispositive portion of what it should have logically decreed based on the body of the decision. However, the court's action is limited to explaining a vague or equivocal part that hampers proper execution; the court cannot modify or overturn its decision in the guise of clarifying ambiguous points. The Court found petitioner's Manifestation exceeded the bounds of clarification.

• Certiorari as a Remedy of Last Resort — Certiorari is a limited form of review and a remedy of last recourse; it will not issue where appeal is available. It cannot substitute for a lapsed or lost appeal, especially when the party's own negligence occasioned the lapse. Exceptions exist when public welfare, public policy, broader interests of justice, null writs, or oppressive judicial authority are involved. None were present here.

• "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 or law, and whether it will be made by the court that rendered it or by the highest court of the land." — This is the canonical formulation of the immutability doctrine as applied in this case, barring any modification of the RTC decision after it became final.

• "Certiorari is not a substitute for a lapsed or lost appeal, especially if the party's own negligence or error in the choice of remedy occasioned such loss or lapse." — This passage articulates the rationale for denying the petition, emphasizing that certiorari cannot cure a party's failure to perfect a timely appeal.

• "Perfection of an appeal within the statutory or reglementary period is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional; failure to do so renders the questioned decision final and executory, and deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction to alter the judgment or final order, much less to entertain the appeal." — This statement underscores the jurisdictional character of the period to appeal, explaining why neither the RTC nor the appellate courts could entertain petitioner's belated claims.

• Heirs of Maura So vs. Obliosca, G.R. No. 147082, January 28, 2008 — Cited for the doctrine that a final and executory judgment becomes immutable and unalterable, and for the enumerated exceptions to that rule.
• Social Security System vs. Isip, G.R. No. 165417, April 3, 2007 — Cited for the principle that a judgment becomes final and executory by operation of law when the reglementary period to appeal lapses without perfection of an appeal.
• Heirs of Ferry Bayot vs. Baterbonia, G.R. No. 142345, August 13, 2004 — Cited for the rule that a final judgment may be clarified or rectified by amendment when there is an inadvertent omission in the dispositive portion of what it should have logically decreed based on the decision's body.
• Heirs of Lourdes Padilla vs. Court of Appeals, 469 Phil. 196 (2004) — Cited for the principle that certiorari is a limited form of review and a remedy of last recourse, and for the recognized exceptions when certiorari may issue despite availability of appeal.
• Badillo vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 131903, June 26, 2008 — Cited for the rule that certiorari is not a substitute for a lapsed or lost appeal occasioned by a party's own negligence or error in the choice of remedy.

• Rule 45, Rules of Court — Governs Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court. Petitioner invoked this rule to assail the CA Resolutions; the Court found no merit in the petition.
• Rule 65, Rules of Court (Certiorari) — The special civil action for certiorari before the CA. The Court reiterated that certiorari is a remedy of last resort and not a substitute for a lost appeal.

Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio (Chairperson), Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta, Associate Justice Roberto A. Abad, and Associate Justice Jose Catral Mendoza concurred.