Torres vs. Aruego

A final and executory judgment becomes immutable and unalterable, and may no longer be modified in any respect by any court, including the Supreme Court, except in limited circumstances such as correction of clerical errors, nunc pro tunc entries, void judgments, or where circumstances transpiring after finality render execution unjust and inequitable; the determination of properties comprising an estate in the dispositive portion of a judgment is conclusive for execution purposes once the decision attains finality, notwithstanding claims that the issue was not litigated on the merits.

Jose M. Aruego died on March 30, 1982, leaving behind properties in Quezon City and Pangasinan, and shares in University Stock Supply, Inc. He was survived by his legitimate children (represented by the petitioners) and alleged illegitimate daughters Antonia and Evelyn Aruego (represented by their mother Luz Fabian). In 1983, Antonia and Evelyn filed an action for compulsory recognition and enforcement of successional rights against the legitimate heirs, initiating litigation that would span over three decades regarding the composition of the estate and the share of the recognized illegitimate daughter.

• The Complaint for Recognition: On March 7, 1983, Antonia F. Aruego and Evelyn F. Aruego, minors represented by their mother Luz M. Fabian, filed a Complaint for "Compulsory Recognition and Enforcement of Successional Rights" with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila (Civil Case No. 83-16093) against Jose E. Aruego, Jr. and the five minor children of Gloria A. Torres, represented by their father and guardian ad litem Justo M. Torres, Jr. (petitioners). They alleged being illegitimate children of the deceased Jose M. Aruego from his relationship with Luz Fabian, and sought participation in his estate.
• Properties Claimed: In paragraph 10 of their Complaint, respondents enumerated specific properties allegedly left by Aruego, including undivided shares in parcels of land covered by various Transfer Certificates of Title in Quezon City and Pangasinan, and shares in University Stock Supply, Inc.
• The RTC Decision: After trial, the RTC rendered a Decision on June 15, 1992, declaring Antonia Aruego as the illegitimate daughter of Jose Aruego, denying Evelyn's claim, and enumerating ten specific properties (identified by TCT numbers) and shares in University Book Supply as comprising Aruego's estate. The court ordered that Antonia was entitled to one-half (1/2) portion of the share of legitimate children, and directed petitioners to recognize her and deliver her share.
• Attempts to Appeal: Petitioners filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration which was denied on January 14, 1993. Their Notice of Appeal filed on February 12, 1993 was denied due course by the RTC on February 26, 1993 as filed out of time. They then filed a Petition for Prohibition and Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which was dismissed on August 31, 1993. Their appeal to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 112193) was denied on March 13, 1996, rendering the June 15, 1992 Decision final and executory.
• Execution and Partition Proceedings: On December 4, 1996, the RTC issued a Writ of Execution. Respondent Antonia filed a Motion for Partition on August 15, 1997 and a Motion to Implement Decision on November 6, 1997, which was granted on December 5, 1997.
• Collateral Attack: On December 12, 1998, petitioners filed a separate action with the RTC of Quezon City (Civil Case No. Q-98-36300) seeking to nullify a Deed of Absolute Sale executed by respondent in favor of Sharon Cuneta, Inc. covering a portion of one of the estate properties (TCT No. 30730).
• The Assailed Orders: On July 1, 1999, respondent filed a Motion for Partition. The RTC initially deferred resolution due to the pending Quezon City case, but after the CA granted respondent's certiorari petition (CA-G.R. SP No. 58587) on March 23, 2004 finding no prejudicial question, the RTC granted the Motion for Partition on July 23, 2009. The RTC ordered petitioners to submit an accounting of fruits and nominate commissioners to prepare a project of partition.
• Certiorari to the CA: Petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration having been denied, they filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA (CA-G.R. SP No. 113405). The CA dismissed the petition for lack of merit on September 12, 2011, and denied the Motion for Reconsideration on March 26, 2012, prompting the instant petition.

• Immutability of Judgments: Petitioners argued that the doctrine of immutability admits of exceptions, citing Heirs of Francisco v. Munoz-Palma, where the Court allowed review when the terms of the judgment are unclear and admit of interpretation. They contended that the June 15, 1992 Decision was ambiguous regarding the "1/2 portion" due to Antonia (whether of the whole estate or of the legitimate children's share) and regarding the properties comprising the estate.
• Lack of Conclusive Adjudication: They maintained that the June 15, 1992 Decision was not conclusive as to the properties comprising the estate because this issue was not raised in the complaint for compulsory recognition and was not litigated on the merits (no evidence presented, not argued by parties). They characterized the declaration of properties as merely incidental.
• Nature of the Decision: Petitioners argued the decision was interlocutory, not final, as it left something to be done (the partition of the estate).
• Res Judicata: They contended that res judicata did not apply because there was no identity of subject matter, parties, and causes of action between the recognition case and the current controversy over estate composition.
• Right to Present Evidence: They prayed to be allowed to present evidence to determine the properties and property interests properly included in Aruego's estate, claiming the terms were patently unclear.

• Finality of Judgment: Respondent countered that the June 15, 1992 Decision had attained finality more than 20 years ago, and all prior attempts to challenge it (appeal, certiorari) were dismissed. She argued that the July 23, 2009 Order merely implemented this final decision.
• Clarity of Terms: Respondent argued there was no ambiguity; the dispositive portion clearly identified the properties and respondent's share (1/2 of the legitimate child's share). She noted petitioners could have raised objections in their Motion for Partial Reconsideration or appeal but failed to do so.
• Nature of the Action: She contended that despite the caption "Compulsory Recognition," the complaint's allegations and prayer necessarily included the determination of the estate's composition and her participation therein, citing paragraphs 9 and 10 of the Complaint which alleged the lack of intestate proceedings and enumerated the properties.

• Immutability of Final Judgments: Whether the June 15, 1992 Decision, which attained finality more than 20 years ago, may still be subject to review and modification on the ground that its terms are unclear.
• Conclusiveness of Judgment: Whether the June 15, 1992 Decision is conclusive with respect to the properties comprising the estate of Jose M. Aruego despite petitioners' claim that this issue was not litigated.
• Res Judicata: Whether the doctrine of res judicata applies to bar the present challenge.
• Interlocutory vs. Final Nature: Whether the June 15, 1992 Decision is a final judgment or merely an interlocutory order.

• Immutability of Final Judgments: The petition was denied. 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 or law. The recognized exceptions (correction of clerical errors, nunc pro tunc entries, void judgments, and circumstances rendering execution unjust) were absent. The Court distinguished Heirs of Francisco v. Munoz-Palma, noting that it allowed appeal from an order of execution where the Project of Partition varied the judgment, whereas here petitioners sought to present evidence to modify the final judgment itself, not merely an execution order.
• Opportunity to Litigate: Petitioners had actively participated in the trial and had ample opportunity to present countervailing evidence regarding the estate properties but failed to do so. Their negligence in failing to appeal the 1992 Decision or raise the issue in their Motion for Partial Reconsideration binds them under the principle that negligence of counsel binds the client.
• Nature of the Action and Conclusiveness: The determination of the estate properties was an issue raised in the complaint. Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the Complaint alleged the lack of intestate proceedings and enumerated the properties, with the prayer seeking determination of the plaintiffs' share in the estate. It is the allegations, not the caption, that control the nature of the action. The dispositive portion of the decision, which controls for execution purposes, specifically enumerated the properties comprising the estate. Having attained finality without timely challenge, petitioners are bound by this enumeration.
• Res Judicata: The elements of res judicata were present: the issue of estate composition was raised and adjudicated in the 1992 Decision, the parties were the same, and the cause of action was the enforcement of successional rights which necessitated determining the estate.

• Immutability of Final Judgments — Once a judgment becomes final and executory by operation of law (when the reglementary period to appeal lapses without appeal), it becomes immutable and unalterable. No court, not even the Supreme Court, can exercise appellate jurisdiction to review or modify a final decision. Exceptions include: (1) correction of clerical errors; (2) nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party; (3) void judgments; and (4) circumstances transpiring after the finality of the decision rendering its execution unjust and inequitable.
• Determination of Action by Allegations — It is not the caption of the pleading but the allegations therein that determine the nature of the action. The court should grant the relief warranted by the allegations and proof even if no such relief is prayed for.
• Dispositive Portion Controls — It is the dispositive portion of the decision that controls for purposes of execution.
• Negligence of Counsel Binds Client — A counsel, once retained, holds implied authority to do all acts necessary or incidental to the prosecution of the suit; any act or omission by counsel within the scope of the authority is regarded as the act or omission of the client.
• Active Participation as Recognition of Jurisdiction — Active participation of a party before a court is tantamount to recognition of that court's jurisdiction and willingness to abide by the court's resolution.

• "Nothing is more settled in the law than that 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 was made by the court that rendered it or by the highest court of the land."
• "It is not the caption of the pleading but the allegations therein that are controlling."
• "It is the dispositive portion of the decision that controls for purposes of execution."
• "The negligence and mistakes of counsel are binding on the client."

• Heirs of Francisco v. Hon. Munoz-Palma, 147 Phil. 721 (1971) — Distinguished; allowed appeal from order of execution where Project of Partition did not conform to the decision or where terms of judgment were unclear, but did not allow modification of the final judgment itself.
• Castro v. Surtida, 87 Phil. 166 (1950) — Followed; appeal from order of execution allowed to pass upon legality and correctness of the order.
• Spouses Genato v. Viola, 625 Phil. 514 (2010) — Cited for the doctrine of immutability of final judgments.
• Leonardo v. Court of Appeals, 481 Phil. 520 (2004) — Followed; allegations determine nature of action, not caption.
• Bejarasco, Jr. v. People, 656 Phil. 337 (2011) — Followed; negligence of counsel binds client.

• Rule 45, Rules of Court — Governs Petitions for Review on Certiorari to the Supreme Court from decisions of the Court of Appeals.

Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno (Chief Justice, on official leave), Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro (Associate Justice, Acting Chairperson), Francis H. Jardeleza (Associate Justice), and Noel Gimenez Tijam (Associate Justice).