G.R. No. 119811 ; August 30, 2001
Socorro S. Torres, et al., petitioners, vs. Hon. Deodoro J. Sison, et al., respondents.

FACTS

The case originated from an action for rescission of a sale of two parcels of land and a ten-door apartment in Dagupan City. The trial court dismissed the complaint but ordered the defendants Illuscupides and Torres to deliver a withheld sum and pay attorney’s fees. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal but reversed other portions, ordering the Torres spouses to reconvey the apartment building to the Illuscupides spouses. The Torreses filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court ( G.R. No. 92248 ). On June 18, 1990, the Court denied the petition, with a resolution stating it found no reversible error in the CA decision “ordering petitioners to reconvey the lots and apartment to respondents Illuscupides.” This resolution became final on July 25, 1990.
Subsequently, the Illuscupides spouses also filed their own petition (G.R. No. 93390), seeking to modify the CA decision to include the repurchase of the two lots, not just the apartment. On December 9, 1992, the Supreme Court rendered a decision affirming the CA decision in toto, which became final on March 8, 1993. The Illuscupides then moved for execution of the resolution in G.R. No. 92248 . The trial court granted the motion and issued a writ of execution directing the reconveyance of both the lots and the apartment. The Torreses moved to quash the writ, arguing the resolution in G.R. No. 92248 contained a typographical error by including “lots,” as the CA only ordered the reconveyance of the apartment.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing a writ of execution ordering the reconveyance of the lots and the apartment based on the Supreme Court’s final and executory resolution in G.R. No. 92248 .

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the trial court’s orders. The legal logic centers on the immutability of final judgments. The resolution in G.R. No. 92248 , which denied the Torreses’ petition and explicitly ordered the reconveyance of “the lots and apartment,” became final and executory on July 25, 1990. A final and executory judgment is immutable and unalterable; it can no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct an alleged error. The Court emphasized that the principle of immutability of final judgments is a fundamental rule founded on public policy and the need for judicial stability. The subsequent decision in G.R. No. 93390, which affirmed the CA decision in toto, did not alter or modify the already-final resolution in G.R. No. 92248 . Therefore, the trial court correctly granted the motion for execution based on the clear and final directive in G.R. No. 92248 . The alleged inconsistency or typographical error raised by the petitioners cannot be entertained to reopen a judgment that has long attained finality. Execution of the final judgment proceeds as a matter of right.