SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 230503. November 28, 2018.]
ERLINDA ZAFRA, petitioner, vs. ARMANDO LENDING INVESTORS, INC. AND SPOUSES RODRIGO ZAFRA AND BERNADITA TIONGSON, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 28 November 2018 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 230503 (Erlinda Zafra vs. Armando Lending Investors, Inc. and Spouses Rodrigo Zafra and Bernadita Tiongson) — Petitioner Erlinda Zafra (Erlinda) filed this instant Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure to assail the April 14, 2016 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA G.R. CV No. 03754-MIN which dismissed her appeal for lack of merit, and its Resolution 2 of February 8, 2017 denying her Motion for Reconsideration.
The case arose out of an ejectment case filed by respondent Armando Lending Investor, Inc. (ALII) against a number of defendants including Bonifacio Zafra (Bonifacio), the late husband of Erlinda, with the Municipal Trial Court in the Cities (MTCC), Tagum City in 2005. It involves a parcel of land formerly covered by Original Certificate of Title No. P-1661 in the name of Venancio Zafra (Venancio) consisting of 197 square meters located at Purok Talisay, Barangay Magugpo East, Tagum City, Davao del Norte.
According to Erlinda, his husband's family had been in possession of the subject lot since 1973. In 1991, their father, Venancio, divided the property among his children and since then, Bonifacio and his own family had been in actual, continuous and adverse possession of the portion given to Bonifacio in the concept of an owner.
However, in 2007, the MTCC rendered its decision in favor of ALII and ordered all the defendants to vacate and surrender the lots in question. None of the defendants filed an appeal hence, the MTCC decision became final and executory. Consequently, a writ of execution was issued on November 8, 2010 while a writ of demolition was issued on February 6, 2012.
On March 27, 2013, Erlinda filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of decision, deed of sale, deed of donation, certificates of title and for reconveyance and damages with preliminary injunction and urgent prayer for temporary restraining order before Branch 30 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tagum City, Davao del Norte. Erlinda contended before the RTC that as ALII admitted having known of the defendants' ownership and actual occupation and possession of the subject lot as early as 2002, the suit for ejectment it filed, therefore, on October 24, 2005 had already prescribed. Such being the case, any action involving the subject property should have been filed with the RTC being the court with exclusive original jurisdiction over the case.
ALII, on the other hand, denied having known of the defendants' alleged ownership of the subject lot as the same has already been registered in the name of respondent Rodrigo Zafra. ALII also argued that the action filed by Erlinda is no longer available as the decision of the MTCC has already become final hence, any action pertaining thereto is already barred by time. ALII also pointed out that the remedy of annulment of judgment supposedly on the ground of MTCC's lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter is likewise not available considering that Erlinda herself failed to file an appeal from the MTCC decision which is in violation of the condition required in the filing of such action.
On July 15, 2013, the RTC dismissed Erlinda's complaint.
Unsatisfied, Erlinda appealed to the CA. However, as stated at the outset, the CA dismissed the appeal as it found no error on the part of the RTC in dismissing Erlinda's complaint for annulment of judgment, thus:
ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED. 3
Erlinda sought reconsideration of the CA decision but the CA denied her motion in its Resolution of February 8, 2017, to wit:
ACCORDINGLY, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
SO ORDERED. 4
Hence, this petition for review assailing the decision and resolution of the CA. Erlinda argues that the dismissal of their complaint without giving her a day in court to air her grievances was wrong. 5 The petition is bereft of merit.
The Court agrees with the court a quo and the CA for dismissing the action for annulment of judgment filed by Erlinda. Indeed, any action pertaining to the subject lot is already time barred considering that the decision of the MTCC already attained finality when the defendants, including Erlinda, did not interpose an appeal at all. Hence, not only did Erlinda sleep on her right to avail of the remedy of appeal, the judgment also became final thus, rendering all the issues between the parties resolved and laid to rest. 6
It is a hornbook rule that once a judgment has become final and executory, it may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct 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 the land, as what remains to be done is the purely ministerial enforcement of execution of the judgment. 7
Likewise, from the foregoing, it also becomes clear that Erlinda could not avail of the remedy of annulment of judgment before the court a quo.
Rule 47 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is quite clear when it comes to availment of the remedy of annulment of judgment. Thus, while the remedy may be based only on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction, the remedy, however, may not be invoked where the party has availed himself of the remedy of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedy and lost therefrom, or where he has failed to avail himself of those remedies through his own fault or negligence.
Here, the records show that Erlinda failed to appeal from the decision of the MTCC which thus gave way to the finality of the decision and the subsequent issuance of a writ of execution on November 8, 2010, and a writ of demolition on February 6, 2012. It was only on March 27, 2013 when Erlinda, on behalf of her husband, Bonifacio, filed the annulment case without proffering any explanation as to her failure to timely file an appeal or any remedy in the usual course of law.
Thusly, for reasons clearly attributable to her, her petition for annulment of judgment must necessarily fall.
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated April 14, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. CV No. 03754-MIN is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED." (Perlas-Bernabe, J., on Wellness leave; Reyes, J., Jr., J., designated as additional Member per S.O. No. 2587 dated August 28, 2018)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Romulo V. Borja and concurred in by Associate Justices Oscar V. Badelles and Edgardo T. Lloren; rollo, pp. 42-48.
2.Id. at 50-52.
3.Id. at 47.
4.Id. at 53.
5.Id. at 33.
6.Gatchalian v. Court of Appeals, 479 Phil. 607, 614-615 (2004).
7.Aliviado v. Procter and Gamble Philippines, Inc., 665 Phil. 542, 551 (2011).