G.R. No. L-26095. January 28, 1980.
RICARDA FARISCAL VDA. DE EMNAS, ELVIRA EMNAS, ELENA EMNAS, EDUARDO BARREDA and LOLITO VILLAFLOR, petitioners, vs. GREGORIO EMNAS and HONORATO GARCIANO as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Leyte, Branch VI, Carigara, Leyte, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners, the widow and children of the deceased Eduardo Emnas, filed a complaint for partition and accounting against respondent Gregorio Emnas, who had been administering the estate. The parties submitted a project of partition, which the trial court approved in a decision dated June 18, 1962, ordering the delivery of relevant papers. No appeal was taken, rendering the decision final and executory. Subsequently, on December 24, 1963, petitioners filed a motion to compel Gregorio to render an accounting of estate income and pay corresponding taxes. The respondent judge, Hon. Honorato Garciano, issued an order on January 15, 1964, granting this motion and directing Gregorio to comply. When Gregorio failed to comply, petitioners moved for contempt.
Gregorio filed a motion to quash the contempt charge, arguing the January 15, 1964 order had no basis in the final partition decision. On September 25, 1965, the respondent judge granted the motion to quash and set aside his own January 15, 1964 order. Petitioners sought certiorari, alleging the judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in nullifying a final order without a proper motion to set it aside and that the January 15 order had vested them proprietary rights.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in setting aside the order of January 15, 1964.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The core legal principle is that once a decision becomes final and executory, the court loses jurisdiction over the case except for the ministerial act of execution. The June 18, 1962 decision approving the project of partition was a final judgment that disposed of the entire case. There was no reservation to hear further evidence on ancillary issues like accounting. Consequently, the court had no remaining authority to issue the subsequent January 15, 1964 order, which effectively amended the final judgment by introducing a new substantial matter—the compulsory accounting and tax payment. A final judgment can only be corrected for clerical errors, not for substantive amendments. Furthermore, the January 15 order was issued without a hearing, denying Gregorio Emnas due process. A void order, such as this one issued without jurisdiction, can be disregarded or set aside at any time, even without a formal motion from a party. Therefore, the respondent judge was legally justified in issuing the September 25, 1965 order to correct a prior jurisdictional error. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.