FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 218547. February 15, 2022.]
DESIDERIA A. GALLEGO, MA. WINDA G. TUBOSA, ANTONIO A. AQUINO, AND NERISSA A. RAMOS, AS HEIRS OF FELIPE ALVAREZ, petitioners, vs.ELSIE BORDNER CORTEZ, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedFebruary 15, 2022which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 218547 (Desideria A. Gallego, Ma. Winda G. Tubosa, Antonio A. Aquino, and Nerissa A. Ramos, as heirs of Felipe Alvarez v. Elsie Bordner Cortez). — Assailed in this Petition for Review on Certiorari1 are the September 30, 2014 Decision 2 and May 11, 2015 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 05038-MIN, which affirmed the dismissal of petitioners' complaint for cancellation of title, reconveyance of property and damages.
Antecedents
The case involves a property dispute between Felipe Alvarez's (Felipe) heirs — Desideria A. Gallego, Ma. Winda G. Tubosa, Antonio A. Aquino, Nerissa A. Ramos (collectively, petitioners), and Victorina Bordner's (Victorina) daughter — Elsie Bordner Cortez (Elsie) over Lot Nos. 1090 and 1093. In 1969, petitioners filed with the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Zamboanga City a Motion for Distribution, alleging that they inherited the land from Felipe. On the other hand, Victorina claimed that some of Felipe's heirs sold their shares to her. 4 The CFI granted both parties' motions and ordered the delivery of the respective portions of the properties to their rightful owners. 5 However, no action was taken by any of the parties to enforce the CFI's order.
On July 10, 2006, Victorina's heirs filed a Petition for Confirmation of Transfer of Inherited Properties, docketed as Special Proceeding No. 5457 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC)-Zamboanga City, Branch 16 (RTC-Branch 16). In its Order dated October 20, 2008, RTC-Branch 16 ordered the cancellation of the certificates of title covering Lot Nos. 1090 and 1093, and the issuance of new certificates of title in the name of the heirs of Victorina. 6 Since no appeal was filed by the parties, the October 20, 2008 Order became final and executory. Meanwhile, Victorina's heirs donated Lot No. 1093 to Elsie, who succeeded in obtaining Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-220420 in her name.
Aggrieved, petitioners filed a Complaint for Cancellation of Title, Reconveyance of Real Property, and Damages against Elsie concerning Lot No. 1093. Incidentally, petitioners sought to assail the RTC-Branch 16's October 20, 2008 Order for erroneously designating the entire Lot No. 1093 to Victorina. Petitioners also alleged that Victorina did not buy the shares of their predecessors in interest. On May 3, 2012, RTC-Zamboanga City, Branch 12 (RTC-Branch 12) dismissed the complaint and reasoned that it could not annul, modify or amend the final and executory Order of RTC-Branch 16, which is a co-equal court. Petitioners moved for reconsideration but were denied. 7
Petitioners then sought recourse, through a Petition for Certiorari, from the CA. In a Decision 8 dated September 30, 2014, the CA noted that petitioners availed the wrong remedy, but ruled that there was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC-Branch 12 in dismissing petitioners' complaint since it was beyond its power to review the ruling of a co-equal court. 9 Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration, 10 which was denied by the CA in its Resolution dated May 11, 2015. 11 Hence, this petition. 12
Petitioners allege that their action for recovery of the property before RTC-Branch 12 should be given due course, 13 and maintain that RTC-Branch 16's October 20, 2008 Order is erroneous since the Court granted to Victorina more than what she is entitled to. Petitioners contend that an erroneous decision may still be annulled by direct action for the recovery of property. Lastly, since the RTC Br. 16's Order already attained finality, their only recourse is the Court's exercise of equity jurisdiction. 14 On the other hand, Elsie argues that the petition should not be given due course considering that petitioners raised questions of fact. 15 ATICcS
Ruling
The petition is bereft of merit.
Equity jurisdiction is used to describe the power of the court to resolve issues presented in a case by the natural rules of fairness and justice in the absence of a clear, positive law governing the resolution of the issues posed. It aims to do complete justice in cases where a court of law is unable to adapt its judgments to the special circumstance of a case because of the inflexibility of its statutory or legal jurisdiction. 16 In Reyes v. Lim, 17 Reyes filed an action for annulment of contract and damages, while Lim moved that the down payment he paid be deposited with the trial court. The Court ruled that the trial court, in the exercise of equity jurisdiction, validly ordered the deposit of the down payment, elucidating as follows:
The instant case x x x is precisely one where there is a hiatus in the law and in the Rules of Court. If left alone, the hiatus will result in unjust enrichment to Reyes at the expense of Lim. The hiatus may also imperil restitution, which is a precondition to the rescission of the Contract to Sell that Reyes himself seeks. This is not a case of equity overruling a positive provision of law or judicial rule for there is none that governs this particular case. This is a case of silence or insufficiency of the law and the Rules of Court. In this case, Article 9 of the Civil Code expressly mandates the courts to make a ruling despite the "silence, obscurity or insufficiency of the laws." This calls for the application of equity, which "fills the open spaces in the law."
x x x The purpose of the exercise of equity jurisdiction[,] in this case[,] is to prevent unjust enrichment and to ensure restitution.
xxx xxx xxx
Equity is the principle by which substantial justice may be attained in cases where the prescribed or customary forms of ordinary law are inadequate.
In the more recent case of Regulus Development, Inc. v. Dela Cruz, 18 the Court affirmed the RTC's exercise of equity jurisdiction to order the levy on respondent's real property to satisfy a ruling in favor of the petitioner, that declared petitioner entitled to rentals for respondent's use and occupation of its property. It was reiterated that the purpose of the exercise of equity jurisdiction, among others, is to prevent unjust enrichment, as well as to ensure restitution. In the cited cases, equity jurisdiction was upheld and applied because the prescribed or customary forms of ordinary law and procedure are inadequate.
Here, there is no justification to apply equity jurisdiction. This is not a case where there is a hiatus in the law or the Rules of Court. 19 The applicable laws and rules provide petitioners with the proper remedies, which they failed to avail. The principle of equity cannot be invoked to remedy petitioners' failure. We emphasize that equity, described as justice outside legality, is applied only in the absence of statutory law or judicial rules of procedure. 20 Where the law prescribes a particular remedy with fixed and limited boundaries, the Court cannot, by exercising equity jurisdiction, extend the boundaries further than the law allows. 21 For all its conceded merits, equity is available only in the absence of law and not as its replacement. All abstract arguments based only on equity should yield to positive rules, which pre-empt and prevail over such persuasions. Emotional appeals for justice, while they may wring the heart of the Court, cannot justify disregard of the mandate of the law as long as it remains in force. 22
Inarguably, RTC-Branch 16's October 20, 2008 Order, which ordered the cancellation of the certificates of title covering Lot Nos. 1090 and 1093 and issuance of new ones in the name of the heirs of Victorina, is already final and executory. No appeal or any other remedy was filed by any of the parties to assail the order. It was only on December 13, 2011, that petitioners filed before RTC-Branch 12 a Complaint for Cancellation of Title, Reconveyance of Real Property and Damages against Elsie, the predecessor of the heirs of Victorina, to question the October 20, 2008 Order. Suffice it to say that this is not the first instance that petitioners failed to take immediate action to enforce their property rights. As early as 1970, they were able to secure a favorable ruling from the CFI, however, they took no action to execute the CFI's order.
Nothing is more settled in law than that once a judgment attains finality, it becomes immutable and unalterable. 23 While this rule may admit exceptions, 24 none exists in this case. The Court cannot consider the alleged error in the October 20, 2008 Order as a special or compelling circumstance to relax the rule on the immutability of final judgments. It cannot be overemphasized that once a decision becomes final, it becomes immutable and unalterable. It may no longer be modified in any respect, even if it is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law. 25 Accordingly, the principle of immutability of final judgment must then be absolutely and unconditionally applied against petitioners. 26
Moreover, we hold that petitioners' action for reconveyance of property and annulment/cancellation of title cannot be tolerated, as it is a mere guise to annul and modify the final and executory October 20, 2008 Order of RTC-Branch 16. The pertinent portion of petitioners' complaint states: TIADCc
22. THAT IN THIS COMPLAINT, PLAINTIFFS ASSAIL ONLY THE DISPOSITION OF LOT 1093 AS EXECUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COURT ORDER IN SPECIAL PROCEEDING NO[.] 5457;
23. That evidently, the order of the RTC-16 is erroneous because the shares of Casiano, Matilde[,] and Cosme Alvarez as designated in the 1969 Motion of Victorina Dacara Bordner herself, were NOT sold to, and should not have been delivered to her. . .
THAT CLEARLY, WHAT WAS GRANTED BY THE COURT WAS MORE THAN WHAT WAS PRAYED FOR IN THE MOTION, WHICH WAS APPROVED, AND WHICH WAS MERELY BEING SOUGHT TO BE EXECUTED IN SPEC. PROC. NO. 5457; 27 (Emphases in the original.)
Before the CA, petitioners reiterated, in their Petition for Certiorari28 and subsequent Motion for Reconsideration, 29 that the order of RTC-Branch 16 may be annulled by the direct action of recovery of property and may be modified through the Court's exercise of equity jurisdiction. Now, petitioners invoke the ruling in Arcelona v. Court of Appeals30(Arcelona) to assert that the October 20, 2008 Order may still be annulled by their direct action for recovery of property. The argument is misplaced. The direct action in Arcelona pertains to a petition for annulment of judgments or final orders and resolutions of the RTC, under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court, cognizable by the CA, and not an action for recovery of property. 31
Rule 47 governs actions for the annulment by the Court of Appeals of final judgments, orders, or resolutions of the RTC in civil actions. It is a recourse equitable in character, allowed only in exceptional cases where there are no available or other adequate remedies, provided that the stringent requirements of the rules are met. 32 Notably, a petition for annulment of judgment should be filed with the CA. Thus, the RTC has no jurisdiction to review, much less modify, another RTC's judgment, as what is sought by the petitioner.
All told, there is simply no compelling reason to warrant relaxation of the rule on the immutability of final judgments, as well as the exercise of equity jurisdiction. Verily, the CA correctly held that no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction was committed by the RTC-Branch 12 when it dismissed petitioners' complaint.
FOR THE STATED REASONS, the petition is DENIED.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-22.
2.Id. at 36-47. Penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Romulo V. Borja and Oscar V. Badelles.
3.Id. at 27-28. Rendered by the same Division of the Court of Appeals.
4.Id. at 36-37. Victorina filed a Motion for Confirmation of Transfers of Inherited Properties, detailing the transfers made in her favor, and at the same time, acknowledging the shares of those who did not sell to her.
5. Order dated January 29, 1970, rendered by District Judge Abdulwahid A. Badin, CFI of Zamboanga City. The pertinent portion of the Order reads:
There being no opposition to both motions, although [sic] the respective heirs and their counsel were furnished with a copy thereof, the Court finding them to be in order and in accordance with law, the said motions are hereby APPROVED; and upon showing of proof that all the estate and inheritance taxes have been paid and delivery of the properties to respective heirs, this case shall be deemed as closed and terminated.
SO ORDERED.
6. The dispositive portion of the Order states:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, after proof of payment of all taxes due on the properties, the Register of Deeds of Zamboanga City is hereby ORDERED and AUTHORIZED to CANCEL Original Certificate of Title No. RO-1562 (8317) covering Lot No. 1090 of the cadastral survey of Zamboanga and Transfer Certificate of Title No. RT-3753(4642 [sic] (T-11813) covering Lot No. 1093 of the cadastral survey of Zamboanga and to ISSUE in lieu thereof, the corresponding Transfer Certificates of Title in the name of the HEIRS OF VICTORINA DACARA BORDNER, after the payment of the legal fees.
SO ORDERED.
7.Rollo, pp. 41-43.
8.Id. at 36-48.
9.Id. at 44-47.
10.Id. at 30-33.
11.Id. at 27-28.
12.Id. at 16. Petitioners submit the following issues for resolution:
WHETHER OR NOT EQUITY JURISDICTION MAY APPLY TO ANNUL A PATENTLY ERRONEOUS JUDGMENT GRIEVOUSLY PREJUDICIAL TO PETITIONERS-IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE?
WHETHER OR NOT A TITLE ISSUED PURSUANT OT [SIC] AN APPARENTLY ERRONEOUS DECISION MAY BE ANNULLED BY DIRECT ACTION FOR RECOVERY OF PROPERTY.
13.Id. at 19-22.
14.Id. at 16-17.
15.Id. at 54-57.
16.Enrile v. Sandiganbayan (Third Division), 789 Phil. 679, 704 (2016); Regulus Development, Inc. v. Dela Cruz, 779 Phil. 75, 86 (2016); Reyes v. Lim, 456 Phil. 1, 10 (2003).
17. 456 Phil. 1, 9-10 (2003).
18. 779 Phil. 75, 83 (2016).
19. See Reyes v. Lim, supra.
20.Zabat, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 226 Phil. 489, 495 (1986).
21.Enrile v. Sandiganbayan (Third Division), 789 Phil. 679, 704 (2016).
22.Id., citing Mangahas v. Court of Appeals, 588 Phil. 61, 86 (2008).
23.Pahila-Garrido v. Tortogo, 671 Phil. 320, 326 (2011).
24.FGU Insurance Corp. v. Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 66, 659 Phil. 117, 123 (2011). The exceptions to the doctrine of finality of judgment or immutability of judgment are: (1) the correction of clerical errors; (2) the so-called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party; (3) void judgments; and (4) whenever the circumstances transpire after finality of the decision rendering its execution unjust and inequitable.
25.One Shipping Corp. v. Peñafiel, 751 Phil. 204, 210 (2015), citing Mocorro, Jr. v. Ramirez, 582 Phil. 357, 366 (2008); FGU Insurance Corp. v. Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 66, supra.
26.Id.
27.Rollo, p. 40.
28.Id. at 43-44.
29.Id. at 31.
30.Arcelona v. Court of Appeals, 345 Phil. 250, 263 (1997).
31. See Denila v. Republic, G.R. No. 206077, July 15, 2020.
32.Baclaran Marketing Corporation v. Nieva, 809 Phil. 92, 99 (2017).