G.R. No. 120176. July 20, 2001.
MA. VALENTINA SANTANA-CRUZ, in her capacity as the Administratrix of the Intestate Estate of the late Francisco D. Santana, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, PATROCINIA JUANSON-CUIZON, FELIPE RIPLE, ELISA MARILAO, JOSE POBLETE, FELIX POBLETE, FRANCISCO TOLENTINO, FLORENTINO TOLENTINO, HOSPICIO TOLENTINO, VIRGINIA TOLENTINO, MAXIMINA TOLENTINO, PACITA MARILAO, MARIA MARILAO, REYNALDO MARILAO, FRANCISCO MARILAO, JR., AND CRISANTA MARILAO, respondents.

FACTS

On March 23, 1993, private respondents, heirs of Valeriana Marilao, through Attorney-in-Fact Patrocinia Juanson-Cuizon, filed a Complaint for Revival/Execution of Judgment with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Antipolo, Rizal. The judgment sought to be revived was the September 30, 1964 Decision of the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Rizal in Civil Case No. 6482, which ordered defendants Francisco Santana and the Heirs of Catalina Reyes to reconvey certain lots to the plaintiffs upon payment of P6,233.40. This CFI decision was affirmed in toto by the Court of Appeals on December 5, 1979. Petitioner Ma. Valentina Santana-Cruz, as administratrix of the estate of Francisco Santana, filed an Omnibus Motion to dismiss the complaint on grounds of failure to state a cause of action, prescription, and that it was filed by an unauthorized person. The RTC denied the motion and issued an Alias Writ of Execution on September 1, 1993. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied. Petitioner then filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with the Court of Appeals. On October 12, 1994, the Court of Appeals granted the petition, reversed the RTC orders, declared the alias writ void, and dismissed the complaint on the ground of prescription. Private respondents filed motions for reconsideration through different counsels (Attys. Julian S. Yap and Raul A. Mora). On December 15, 1994, the Court of Appeals denied the motion for reconsideration filed by Atty. Yap. Private respondents also filed petitions for review with the Supreme Court (G.R. Nos. 118341 and 118360). Meanwhile, on February 9, 1995, the Court of Appeals promulgated a Resolution granting the motion for reconsideration filed by Atty. Mora, thereby reconsidering and setting aside its October 12, 1994 Decision and dismissing petitioner’s certiorari petition for lack of merit. The Court of Appeals held that the complaint for revival could be treated as a motion for execution and was not barred by prescription. Petitioner filed a manifestation and motion to recall this February 9, 1995 Resolution, which was denied by the Court of Appeals on April 21, 1995. Petitioner appealed these resolutions.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing its February 9, 1995 Resolution which reconsidered and set aside its final and executory October 12, 1994 Decision.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion. The October 12, 1994 Decision of the Court of Appeals had already become final and executory. The denial of the first motion for reconsideration (filed by Atty. Yap) on December 15, 1994 rendered the October 12, 1994 Decision final. The filing of a second motion for reconsideration (by Atty. Mora) was a prohibited pleading. The Court of Appeals no longer had jurisdiction to entertain the second motion for reconsideration or to issue the February 9, 1995 Resolution. The Supreme Court emphasized that the doctrine of finality of judgment is immutable. The February 9, 1995 and April 21, 1995 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals were annulled and set aside. The October 12, 1994 Decision of the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the complaint for revival/execution on the ground of prescription, was reinstated.