G.R. No. 167139; February 25, 2010
SUSIE CHAN-TAN, Petitioner, vs. JESSE C. TAN, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Susie Chan-Tan and respondent Jesse C. Tan were married in June 1989 and had two sons. In 2001, petitioner filed a case for annulment of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code. The parties submitted a Compromise Agreement addressing property relations, custody, visitation rights, and support. On July 31, 2003, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) issued a Partial Judgment approving this Compromise Agreement. On March 30, 2004, the RTC rendered a Decision declaring the marriage void on the ground of mutual psychological incapacity and incorporated the Compromise Agreement into the decision.
Subsequently, petitioner cancelled the purchase of a subdivision lot covered by the Compromise Agreement, reallocated the payments, and left the country with the children without respondent’s knowledge or court authority. Respondent filed an omnibus motion seeking custody of the children, alleging petitioner’s failure to pay the balance for a property (prejudicing the children’s interest) and failure to turn over documents and titles in his name. On May 17, 2004, the RTC issued a Resolution amending its decision, awarding custody of the children to respondent, ordering petitioner to turn over documents and titles to respondent, and allowing respondent to stay in the family dwelling.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which the RTC denied in its October 12, 2004 Resolution for late filing. Petitioner then filed a motion to dismiss and a motion for reconsideration of the October 12, 2004 Resolution, which the RTC denied in its December 28, 2004 Resolution. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the December 28, 2004 Resolution was denied by the RTC in its February 15, 2005 Resolution. Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the Regional Trial Court committed reversible error in issuing its May 17, 2004 Resolution (amending the March 30, 2004 Decision to grant respondent custody, order the turnover of documents, and allow him to stay in the family dwelling) and in its subsequent resolutions denying petitioner’s motions.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the assailed RTC resolutions. The Court held that the March 30, 2004 Decision and the May 17, 2004 Resolution had long become final and executory upon the lapse of the 15-day reglementary period for appeal without any timely appeal being filed by either party. A judgment that becomes final and executory becomes immutable and unalterable; it may no longer be modified in any respect, even to correct an erroneous conclusion of fact or law, based on fundamental considerations of public policy and sound practice that judgments must be final at a definite date fixed by law. The trial court was correct in denying petitioner’s belated motion to dismiss. The Court found no reversible error in the RTC’s resolutions.