ROBERTO A. TORRES, IMMACULADA TORRES-ALANON, AGUSTIN TORRES, AND JUSTO TORRES, JR., PETITIONERS, VS. ANTONIA F. ARUEGO, RESPONDENT.

Torres versus Aruego

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by Roberto Torres, Immaculada Torres-Alanon, Agustin Torres, and Justo Torres, Jr. against Antonia Aruego. The petitioners are the children of Gloria Torres, one of the acknowledged heirs of the deceased Jose Aruego, and they challenge the orders of the trial court and the Court of Appeals that gave due course to Antonia's motion for partition of Aruego's estate. The case matters because it is the Supreme Court's clean statement of the doctrine of immutability of final judgments — that a decision which has become final, even if erroneous, can no longer be modified — and because it draws a sharp line between an appeal from a final judgment and a review of an order of execution.

Procedural History

On March 7, 1983, Antonia Aruego and Evelyn Aruego, through their mother and guardian ad litem Luz Fabian, filed a complaint for compulsory recognition and enforcement of successional rights against Jose Aruego, Jr. and the five minor children of Gloria Torres, represented by their father Justo Torres, Jr. After trial, the Regional Trial Court of Manila rendered its decision on June 15, 1992, declaring Antonia the illegitimate daughter of Jose Aruego and Luz Fabian, fixing the properties comprising the estate, and awarding Antonia a share equal to one half of the share of the legitimate children. The defendants' motion for partial reconsideration was denied, and their notice of appeal was denied due course for having been filed out of time. They then filed a petition for prohibition and certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which dismissed it; their motion for reconsideration was likewise denied. They elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari, and in a decision dated March 13, 1996, the Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals.

Antonia thereafter moved for partition and for implementation of the 1992 decision. The trial court deferred the motion on the ground that a pending annulment case in Quezon City raised a prejudicial question, but the Court of Appeals, in a decision that became final, found no prejudicial question and granted Antonia's petition for certiorari. The trial court then granted the motion for partition in its order dated July 23, 2009, directing an accounting of fruits and the creation of a commission to prepare an updated project of partition. The petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied, and their petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals was dismissed for lack of merit in a resolution promulgated on September 12, 2011, with the motion for reconsideration denied on March 26, 2012. Hence this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.

Facts

Jose Aruego died on March 30, 1982. Antonia and Evelyn claimed to be his illegitimate children by Luz Fabian, with whom he had maintained an amorous relationship until his death. In their 1983 complaint they alleged continuous possession of the status of children of the deceased and enumerated the properties they knew to comprise his estate, including shares in several titled parcels of land and in a corporation.

After trial, the trial court declared Antonia an illegitimate daughter but found that Evelyn was not. It listed the real properties and the share in the University Book Store as comprising the estate, and held Antonia entitled to a share equal to one half of the share of the legitimate children. The petitioners failed to perfect a timely appeal, and every subsequent challenge they mounted was dismissed, culminating in the Supreme Court's denial of their petition in March 1996.

When Antonia sought partition and implementation of that final decision, the petitioners resisted, arguing that the 1992 decision was unclear as to what properties belonged to the estate and how the shares should be computed, and that they should be allowed to present evidence on these matters. They also blamed their former counsel for the lost appeal.

Issues

• Whether or not the June 15, 1992 decision of the trial court, which attained finality more than twenty years earlier, may still be reviewed and modified by the Supreme Court.
• Whether or not the doctrine of immutability of final judgments admits an exception where the terms of the judgment are allegedly unclear and open to interpretation.
• Whether or not the petitioners may still be allowed to present evidence on the properties comprising the estate and on the identity of the heirs.

Applicable Provisions

Rule 45 of the Rules of Court governs the petition for review on certiorari by which the case reached the Supreme Court:

Section 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court. A party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment or final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Court of Tax Appeals, the Regional Trial Court or other courts whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari. The petition shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth.

This provision defines the vehicle the petitioners used, and it bears on the case because the Court treats their prayer as, in substance, an appeal from a long-final judgment rather than a review of an order of execution.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petition is not meritorious. 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, whether by the court that rendered it or by the highest court of the land. The Court restated the only recognized exceptions:

The only recognized exceptions to the general rule are the correction of clerical errors, the so-called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party, void judgments, and whenever circumstances transpire after the finality of the decision rendering its execution unjust and inequitable.

None of these exceptions was present. The Court stressed that no court, not even the Supreme Court, can exercise appellate jurisdiction to review or modify a decision that has become final.

On the second issue, the Court rejected the petitioners' reliance on the Heirs of Francisco versus Muñoz-Palma case. There, what was on appeal was an order of execution, allowed because the project of partition submitted did not conform to the final decision. Here, what the petitioners sought was an order allowing them to present evidence on the properties and the heirs — in effect, an appeal from the 1992 decision itself, not from an order of execution. The Court also noted that the trial court had already settled what properties comprised the estate when it resolved the main controversy in 1992.

On the third issue, the Court held that the petitioners had their day in court. Antonia offered in evidence the certificates of title, and the petitioners neither opposed the offer nor presented rebutting evidence, though they actively participated in the trial and offered their own evidence. Evidence that should have been presented during trial cannot be presented after finality. The Court also held that the negligence and mistakes of counsel bind the client, and that a party's active participation before a court amounts to recognition of its jurisdiction.

Doctrine

A judgment that has become final and executory is immutable and unalterable. It may not be modified in any respect, even to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law, whether by the court that rendered it or by the Supreme Court. The exceptions are narrow: the correction of clerical errors, nunc pro tunc entries that cause no prejudice to any party, void judgments, and circumstances that transpire after finality rendering execution unjust and inequitable. The remedy of appeal from an order of execution, as in Heirs of Francisco versus Muñoz-Palma, is distinct from a collateral attack on the final judgment itself. A party who failed to present evidence during trial cannot be allowed to present it after the judgment has become final, and the negligence of counsel binds the client.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the resolutions of the Court of Appeals, leaving the 1992 decision and the order for partition in force.

Remember This

Memorize the line: a final judgment is immutable and unalterable, and the only exceptions are clerical errors, nunc pro tunc entries causing no prejudice, void judgments, and supervening circumstances rendering execution unjust. Examiners use this case to test the finality of judgments, the distinction between an appeal from a final judgment and a review of an order of execution, and the binding effect of counsel's negligence on the client.