GR 145793; (June, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 145793 ; June 10, 2004
LINA VILLANUEVA, petitioner, vs. GENEROSO YAP and the HONORABLE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, OF GENERAL SANTOS CITY, BRANCH 37, respondents.
FACTS
Respondent Generoso Yap filed a complaint (Civil Case No. 3551) in 1987 against petitioner Lina Villanueva for recovery of possession of two parcels of land. Villanueva claimed she was a caretaker and employee of the previous owner. Due to Yap’s failure to appear at trial, his complaint was dismissed, and the court awarded damages to Villanueva on her counterclaims. This decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals and became final. In 1992, Yap filed a new complaint (Civil Case No. 4825) for recovery of possession over the same properties, adding a third lot. Villanueva moved to dismiss on the ground of res judicata, but the trial court denied the motion.
The trial court in Civil Case No. 4825 ruled in favor of Yap, ordering Villanueva to vacate the land and pay damages. Villanueva appealed, arguing res judicata and that she was an agricultural tenant, placing jurisdiction with the DARAB. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision, which subsequently became final and executory. Villanueva then filed this petition for review on certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the petition for review on certiorari should be granted, considering the finality of the Court of Appeals’ decision in Civil Case No. 4825 and the procedural defects in the petition.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition. The legal logic is anchored on the doctrine of finality of judgment and procedural rules. First, the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the trial court’s judgment in Civil Case No. 4825 had already become final and executory. A final and executory judgment is immutable and unalterable; it cannot be modified even by the Supreme Court. The Court is thus bereft of jurisdiction to annul or review such a decision. The execution of that judgment is a ministerial duty of the trial court.
Second, the petition was filed out of time. Under Rule 45, a petition for review on certiorari must be filed within fifteen (15) days from notice of the assailed judgment. The trial court rendered its decision in August 1994, but the petition was filed only in November 2000, long after the reglementary period had lapsed. Third, the Court noted that Villanueva had previously filed a petition to annul the same RTC decision (CA-G.R. SP No. 60812), which was dismissed by the Court of Appeals. The present petition constitutes a prohibited attempt to re-litigate issues already settled with finality, which would defeat the role of courts as final arbiters. Therefore, the petition was denied due course and dismissed.