G.R. No. 175891 ; January 12, 2010
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. RESINS, INCORPORATED, Respondent.

FACTS

On 17 October 1991, Resins, Incorporated filed Land Registration Case No. N-91-012 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Misamis Oriental, Branch 20, for judicial confirmation of title over eight parcels of land in Jasaan, Misamis Oriental. The initial hearing was set for 30 April 1992 after compliance with LRA recommendations. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) entered its appearance on 10 February 1992, authorizing the City Prosecutor to appear but retaining supervision and requiring notices of orders and decisions to be served on the OSG to bind the government. Notices were duly published and posted. During the initial hearing on 30 April 1992, the RTC issued an order of general default except against the Republic and one Renato Bautista. Hearings were subsequently held. On 4 February 1993, the RTC admitted Resins, Inc.’s exhibits as no opposition was filed by the government. On 17 March 1993, the RTC rendered a Judgment decreeing registration of the lots in favor of Resins, Inc.
Due to typographical errors in the 17 March 1993 Judgment, Resins, Inc. filed motions for correction. The RTC issued an Amended Judgment on 17 January 1994, which corrected only one error, and another Amended Judgment on 16 March 1994, which corrected both errors. The OSG received a copy of the Amended Judgment on 2 May 1994 and filed a notice of appeal on 12 May 1994. Resins, Inc. filed a motion to order the LRA to issue a decree of registration. On 7 July 1999, the RTC granted the motion, dismissed the OSG’s appeal as filed beyond the reglementary period, and directed the LRA to issue a decree. The Republic filed a Motion for Reconsideration, alleging it was never furnished a copy of the original 17 March 1993 Judgment. Resins, Inc. opposed, presenting a certification from the RTC Clerk of Court and post office return slips showing the OSG received the decision on 6 April 1993. On 28 May 2003, the RTC denied the Republic’s motion, finding the OSG was duly served. The Republic filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which was denied. The Republic then elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not finding grave abuse of discretion by the RTC in issuing its 7 July 1999 and 28 May 2003 Orders, which dismissed the Republic’s appeal and directed the issuance of a decree of registration, based on the conclusion that the OSG was duly served with a copy of the 17 March 1993 RTC Judgment, thereby causing it to become final and executory.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Court of Appeals Decision. The RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion.
The Court held that service of judgments and final orders upon the OSG, as the statutory counsel for the Republic, is mandatory and jurisdictional. The reglementary period for appeal begins only upon proper service to the OSG. In this case, the evidence—specifically the RTC Clerk of Court’s certification and the post office return slips—conclusively established that the OSG received a copy of the 17 March 1993 Judgment on 6 April 1993. The Republic’s notice of appeal filed on 12 May 1994 was therefore filed beyond the 15-day reglementary period, which lapsed on 21 April 1993. Consequently, the RTC Judgment had long become final and executory. The subsequent amended judgments, which merely corrected clerical errors, did not reopen the period for appeal. The RTC correctly dismissed the belated appeal and properly ordered the issuance of the decree of registration. The Court emphasized that final judgments must not be disturbed, and the Republic’s failure to timely appeal binds the government.