G.R. No. 94005 https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1993/apr1993/gr_94005_1993.
html
Today is Sunday, May 26, 2024
Constitution Statutes Executive Issuances Judicial Issuances Other Issuances Jurisprudence International Legal Resources AUSL Exclusive
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 94005. April 6, 1993.
LUISA LYON NUÑAL, herein represented by ALBERT NUÑAL, and ANITA NUÑAL HORMIGOS, petitioners,
vs.
THE COURT OF APPEALS and EMMA LYON DE LEON in her behalf and as guardian ad litem of the minors
HELEN SABARRE and KENNY SABARRE, EDUARDO GUZMAN, MERCEDEZ LYON TAUPAN, WILFREDO
GUZMAN, MALLY LYON ENCARNACION and DORA LYON DELAS PEÑAS, respondents.
SYLLABUS
1. REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL PROCEDURE; JUDGMENT; ONCE IT BECOMES FINAL, MAY NO LONGER BE
MODIFIED IN ANY RESPECT; EXCEPTIONS. — In the case of Manning International Corporation v. NLRC, (195
SCRA 155, 161 [1991]) We held that ". . ., nothing is more settled in the law than that when a final judgment
becomes executory, it thereby becomes immutable and unalterable. The judgment 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,
and regardless of whether the modification is attempted to be made by the Court rendering it or by the highest Court
of land. The only recognized exceptions are the correction of clerical errors or the making of so-called nunc pro tunc
entries which cause no prejudice to any party, and, of course, where the judgment is void." Furthermore, "(a)ny
amendment or alteration which substantially affects a final and executory judgment is null and void for lack of
jurisdiction, including the entire proceedings held for that purpose."
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; REMEDY OF AGGRIEVED PARTY. — In the case at bar, the decision of the trial court in Civil
Case No. 872 has become final and executory. Thus, upon its finality, the trial judge lost his jurisdiction over the
case. Consequently, any modification that he would make, as in this case, the inclusion of Mary Lyon Martin would
be in excess of his authority. The remedy of Mary Lyon Martin is to file an independent suit against the parties in
Civil Case No. 872 and all other heirs for her share in the subject property, in order that all the parties in interest can
prove their respective claims.
DECISION
CAMPOS, JR., J p:
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision ** dated February 22, 1990 of the Court of Appeals in CA-
G.R. CV No. 14889 entitled "Emma Lyon de Leon, et al., plaintiffs-appellees versus Luisa Lyon Nuñal, now
deceased herein represented by Albert Nuñal, et al., defendants appellants," dismissing petitioners' appeal and
affirming the trial court's order *** dated January 9, 1987 for the inclusion of Mary Lyon Martin as one of the heirs
who shall benefit from the partition.
The facts as culled from the records of the case are as follows.
This case originated from a suit docketed as Civil Case No. 872 filed by Emma Lyon de Leon in her behalf and as
guardian ad litem of the minors Helen Sabarre and Kenny Sabarre, Eduardo Guzman, Mercedes Lyon Taupan,
Wilfredo Guzman, Mally Lyon Encarnacion and Dona Lyon de las Peñas, (herein private respondents) against Luisa
Lyon Nuñal, now deceased and herein represented by her heirs, Albert Nuñal and Anita Nuñal Hormigos (herein
petitioners), for partition and accounting of a parcel of land located in Isabela, Basilan City. Subject parcel of land
was formerly owned by Frank C. Lyon and May Ekstrom Lyon, deceased parents of Helen, Dona, Luisa, Mary, Frank
and William James. Private respondents claimed that said parcel of land, formerly covered by Transfer Certificate of
Title No. 3141 in the name of Frank C. Lyon, has been in possession of petitioner Luisa Lyon Nuñal since 1946 and
that she made no accounting of the income derived therefrom, despite demands made by private respondents for
the partition and delivery of their shares.
1 of 4 5/26/2024, 4:25 PM
G.R. No. 94005 https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1993/apr1993/gr_94005_1993.html
On December 17, 1974, after trial and hearing, the then Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial court) rendered
its judgment in favor of private respondents and ordered the partition of the property but dismissing private
respondents' complaint for accounting. The dispositive portion of the judgment reads as follows:
"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the partition of the land covered by Transfer Certificate of
Title No. 3141 among the plaintiffs and defendant. The parties shall make partition among themselves by proper
instruments of conveyance, subject to the Court's confirmation, should the parties be unable to agree on the
partition, the court shall appoint commissioners to make the partition, commanding them to set off to such party in
interest such part and proportion of the property as the Court shall direct. Defendant is further ordered to pay
plaintiffs attorney's fees in the sum of P2,000.00." 1
On July 30, 1982, the order of partition was affirmed in toto by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 57265-R. The
case was remanded to the court of origin for the ordered partition. 2
On May 17, 1984, an order for the issuance of the writ of execution was issued by the court a quo. 3
On July 17, 1984, Mary Lyon Martin, daughter of the late Frank C. Lyon and Mary Ekstrom Lyon, assisted by her
counsel filed a motion to quash the order of execution with preliminary injunction. In her motion, she contends that
not being a party to the above-entitled case her rights, interests, ownership and participation over the land should
not be affected by a judgment in the said case; that the order of execution is unenforceable insofar as her share,
right, ownership and participation is concerned, said share not having been brought within the Jurisdiction of the
court a quo. She further invokes Section 12, Rule 69 of the Rules of Court. 4
On June 26, 1985, the trial court issued an order revoking the appointment of the three commissioners and in lieu
thereof, ordered the issuance of a writ of execution. 5
On February 4, 1986, the said court issued an order appointing a Board of Commissioners to effect the partition of
the contested property. 6
On May 28, 1986, the trial court dismissed the motion to quash order of execution with preliminary injunction filed by
Mary Lyon Martin and directed the partition of the property among the original party plaintiffs and defendants. 7
On September 24, 1986, the Commissioners manifested to the trial court that in view of the fact that the name of
Mary Lyon Martin also appears in the Transfer Certificate of Title, she could therefore be construed as one of the
heirs. A ruling from the trial court was then sought. 8
On September 29, 1986, the lower court issued an order directing the counsel of Emma Lyon de Leon to furnish the
court within five days from receipt thereof all the names the of heirs entitled to share in the partition of the subject
property. 9
On October 1, 1986, the petitioners filed a manifestation praying that the court issue an order directing the partition
of the property in consonance the decision dated December 17, 1974 of the trial court the order of said court dated
May 28, 1986. 10
Without ruling on the manifestation, the lower court issued an order directing the Board of Commissioners to
immediately partition the said property. 11
On January 3, 1987, the private respondents filed motion for clarification as to whether the partition of property is to
be confined merely among the party plaintiffs and defendants, to the exclusion of Mary Lyon Martin. 12
On January 9, 1987, the lower court issued the assailed order directing the inclusion of Mary Lyon Martin as co-
owner with a share in the partition of the property, to wit:
"After a perusal of the decision of the Court of Appeals CA-G.R. No. 57265-R, where this case was appealed by the
unsatisfied parties, there is a finding that Mary now Mary Lyon Martin is one of the legitimate children of Frank C.
Lyon and Mary Ekstrom. (Page 3 of the decision).
In view of this finding, it would be unfair and unjust if she would be left out in the partition of this property now
undertaking (sic) by the said court appointed commissioners.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the court appointed commissioners is hereby directed to include Mary Lyon
Martin as co-owner in the said property subject of partition with the corresponding shares adjudicated to her.
SO ORDERED." 13
Petitioners' motion for reconsideration 14 of the aforesaid order was denied by the trial court. 15
On February 22, 1990 the Court of Appeals rendered its decision dismissing petitioners' appeal, the dispositive
portion of which reads as follows:
2 of 4 5/26/2024, 4:25 PM
G.R. No. 94005 https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1993/apr1993/gr_94005_1993.html
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, there being no legal impediment to the inclusion of Mary Lyon Martin by the
court-appointed Board of Commissioners as one of the heirs who shall benefit from the partition, the instant appeal
is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
NO COSTS.
SO ORDERED." 16
Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied on June 6, 1990. 17
Petitioners filed this petition for review alleging that the Court of Appeals has decided questions of substance
contrary to law and the applicable decisions of this Court, for the following reasons:
"1.) BY SUSTAINING THE ORDER OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT DIRECTING THE COURT APPOINTED
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS TO INCLUDE MARY L. MARTIN TO SHARE IN THE PARTITION OF THE
PROPERTY IN LITIGATION DESPITE THE FACT, OVER WHICH THERE IS NO DISPUTE, THAT SHE HAS NOT
LITIGATED EITHER AS A PARTY PLAINTIFF OR DEFENDANT IN CIVIL CASE NO. 872, IT HAS REFUSED TO
RECOGNIZE THAT THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION TO AMEND OR MODIFY THE
JUDGMENT IN CIVIL CASE NO. 872 AND THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT'S ORDER DATED 28 MAY 1986
WHICH HAS BECOME FINAL AND EXECUTORY.
2.) WHEN THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT MARY L. MARTIN "NEVER
LITIGATED AS ONE OF THE PLAINTIFFS IN SAID CASE," AND HER ONLY PARTICIPATION THEREIN WAS
SIMPLY CONFINED "AS A WITNESS FOR DEFENDANT-SISTER LUISA LY ON NUÑAL," AND TO ALLOW HER
TO SHARE IN THE PARTITION THIS LATE WITHOUT REQUIRING A PROCEEDING WHERE THE PARTIES
COULD PROVE THEIR RESPECTIVE CLAIMS, IS TANTAMOUNT TO DENYING THE NUÑALS OF THEIR RIGHT
TO DUE PROCESS. 18
The crux of this case is whether of not the trial court may order the inclusion of Mary L. Martin as co-heir entitled to
participate in the partition of the property considering that she was neither a party plaintiff nor a party defendant in
Civil Case No. 872 for partition and accounting of the aforesaid property and that the decision rendered in said case
has long become final and executory.
Petitioners contend that the trial court's decision dated December 14, 1974 in Civil Case No. 872 ordering the
partition of the parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 3141 among plaintiffs and defendants has
long become final and executory. Hence the trial court has no jurisdiction to issue the questioned Order dated
January 9, 1987 ordering the Board of Commissioners to include Mary Lyon Martin to share in the partition of said
property despite the fact that she was not a party to the said case. Said Order, therefore, resulted in an amendment
or modification of its decision rendered in Civil Case No. 872.
We find merit in the instant petition.
In the ease of Manning International Corporation v. NLRC, 19 We held that ". . ., nothing is more settled in the law
than that when a final judgment becomes executory, it thereby becomes immutable and unalterable. The judgment
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, and regardless of whether the modification is attempted to be made by the
Court rendering it or by the highest Court of land. The only recognized exceptions are the correction of clerical
errors or the making of so-called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party, and, of course, where
the judgment is void."
Furthermore, "(a)ny amendment. or alteration which substantially affects a final and executory judgment is null and
void for lack of jurisdiction, including the entire proceedings held for that purpose." 20
In the case at bar, the decision of the trial court in Civil Case No. 872 has become final and executory. Thus, upon
its finality, the trial judge lost his jurisdiction over the case. Consequently, any modification that he would make, as in
this case, the inclusion of Mary Lyon Martin would be in excess of his authority.
The remedy of Mary Lyon Martin is to file an independent suit against the parties in Civil Case No. 872 and all other
heirs for her share in the subject property, in order that all the parties in interest can prove their respective claims.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Order dated January 9, 1987 of the trial Court as affirmed by the
Court of Appeals is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The decision of the trial court dated December 17, 1974 in
Civil Case No. 872 is hereby REINSTATED.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C .J ., Padilla, Regalado and Nocon, Jr., JJ ., concur.
Footnotes
3 of 4 5/26/2024, 4:25 PM
G.R. No. 94005 https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1993/apr1993/gr_94005_1993.html
** Penned By Associate Justice Ricardo J. Francisco and concurred in by Associate Justices Minerva Gonzaga-
Reyes and Salome A. Montoya.
*** Penned by Judge Salvador A. Memoracion, Regional Trial Court, 9th Judicial Region, Branch I, Isabela, Basilan.
1. Rollo, p. 44; Record on Appeal, pp. 2-3.
2. Ibid., p. 8.
3. Ibid., p. 9.
4. Ibid., pp. 10-11.
5. Ibid., pp. 12-13.
6. Ibid., pp. 13-14.
7. Ibid., pp. 14-16.
8. Ibid., pp. 19-20.
9. Ibid., p. 21.
10. Ibid., pp. 21-23.
11. Ibid., p. 23.
12. Ibid., pp. 24-26.
13. Ibid., pp. 26-27.
14. Ibid., pp. 27-33.
15. Ibid., pp. 35-37.
16. Rollo, p. 21; Decision, p. 6.
17. Rollo, p. 23; Resolution.
18. Rollo, pp. 4-5; petition, pp. 2-3.
19. 195 SCRA 155, 161 (1991).
20. Francisco vs. Bautista, 192 SCRA 388, 392 (1990), citing Marcopper Mining Corp. vs. Liwanag Paras Brios, et
al., 165 SCRA 464 (1988).
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
4 of 4 5/26/2024, 4:25 PM
