SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 235606. March 27, 2019.]
EULALIA PEREZ-GAERLAN, MAY PEREZ-AFRICA, NICXON LOBO PEREZ, SR., RAMONA PEREZ-MONTSERRAT, CORAZON PEREZ-CAGUNGUN, HERMILINDA PEREZ-MALLOY AND LILIBETH PEREZ-WONG, petitioners, vs.ADONIS M. PEREZ, respondent.
[G.R. No. 235633. March 27, 2019.]
ADONIS PEREZ, REPRESENTED BY HIS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, ELENA NORKUS, petitioners, vs.EULALIA PEREZ-GAERLAN, MAY PEREZ-AFRICA, NICXON LOBO PEREZ, SR., RAMONA PEREZ-MONTSERRAT, CORAZON PEREZ-MALLOY AND LILIBETH PEREZ-WONG, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 27 March 2019 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 235606 — Eulalia Perez-Gaerlan, May Perez-Africa, Nicxon Lobo Perez, Sr., Ramona Perez-Montserrat, Corazon Perez-Cagungun, Hermilinda Perez-Malloy and Lilibeth Perez-Wong versus Adonis M. Perez
G.R. No. 235633 — Adonis Perez, represented by his attorney-in-fact, Elena Norkus versus Eulalia Perez-Gaerlan, May Perez-Africa, Nicxon Lobo Perez, Sr., Ramona Perez-Montserrat, Corazon Perez-Malloy and Lilibeth Perez-Wong
After an exhaustive review of the instant Petitions and their annexes, the Court resolves to DENY the instant Petitions in G.R. Nos. 235606 and 235633, and AFFIRM the Court of Appeals' (CA) Decision 1 dated June 20, 2017 and Resolution 2 dated November 21, 2017 in CA-G.R. CV No. 107643.
Both petitioners failed to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error as to warrant the exercise of this Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
The court a quo was correct in invoking the principle of immutability of judgment. Under the aforesaid doctrine, a judgment that has attained finality can no longer be disturbed; issues actually and directly resolved in a former suit cannot again be raised in any future case between the same parties. 3
In the case at hand, it bears stressing that petitioner Adonis did not appeal the 2005 Decision of the RTC, Branch 73 nullifying the marriage of Eliodoro and Adelita, which inevitably became a final and executory ruling. Such must stand until the same is annulled and set aside by a competent court. With Adonis' other argument premised primarily on his mistaken and debunked argument on the invalidity of the Decision of the RTC, Branch 73 in the Nullity Case, his Petition must be dismissed for lack of merit.
With respect to Eulalia, et al.'s Petition, it is clear that at the time of the acquisition of the subject property, Eliodoro and Adelita were still cohabiting together, albeit under a null and void marriage.
Under Article 147 of the Family Code, when a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other, live exclusively with each other as husband and wife under a void marriage, the property acquired by both of them through their work or industry shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership. In the absence of proof to the contrary, properties acquired while they lived together shall be presumed to have been obtained by their joint efforts, work or industry, and shall be owned by them in equal shares.
In the instant case, the Court finds that Eulalia, et al., seriously failed to present sufficient evidence to reverse the presumption that the subject property, which was acquired while Eliodoro and Adelita cohabited together under their null and void marriage, was obtained by their joint efforts, work or industry, and, thus, shall be owned by them in equal shares under a co-ownership.
Hence, with the main premise of Eulalia, et al.'s Petition being unmeritorious, the Petition must similarly be denied.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo (G.R. No. 235606), pp. 36-50; rollo (G.R. No. 235633), pp. 105-119. Penned by Associate Justice Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla, with Associate Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. (now a Member or this Court) and Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez concurring.
2.Id. at 55-56; id. at 126-127. Penned by Associate Justice Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla, with Associate Justices Danton Q. Bueser and Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez concurring.
3.Borlongan v. Buenaventura, 518 Phil. 558 (2006).