G.R. No. 199595, April 2, 2014
PHILIPPINE WOMAN’S CHRISTIAN TEMPERANCE UNION, INC., Petitioner, vs. TEODORO R. YANGCO 2ND AND 3RD GENERATION HEIRS FOUNDATION, INC., Respondent.

FACTS

On May 19, 1934, Teodoro R. Yangco donated a parcel of land to the Philippine Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, Inc. (PWCTUI) under the condition that it be used as a site for the “Abiertas House of Friendship” for needy women and children. The deed stated that if used for any other purpose, the donation would become null and void and the property would automatically revert to the donor or his heirs. The property was registered under TCT No. 20970 in PWCTUI’s name, with the conditions annotated. PWCTUI’s original corporate term (SEC Reg. No. PW-959) expired in September 1979. In 1984, a new corporation with the same name was registered (SEC Reg. No. 122088), which then obtained a new owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. 20970 (T-22702) through a land registration case, but the new title bore only the first condition of the donation. In 2004, the respondent Teodoro R. Yangco 2nd and 3rd Generation Heirs Foundation, Inc. (TRY Foundation) filed a petition before the RTC (LRC Case No. Q-18126(04)) for the issuance of a new title in its name, arguing that the expiration of PWCTUI’s corporate term in 1979 triggered the automatic reversion of the property to Yangco’s heirs. The RTC granted the petition, ordering the cancellation of PWCTUI’s title and the issuance of a new one in TRY Foundation’s name. The CA affirmed the RTC decision. PWCTUI’s petition for review to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 190193) was denied with finality in Resolutions dated July 21, 2010 and September 15, 2010, and an entry of judgment was issued. Subsequently, PWCTUI filed the present petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65, seeking to annul the RTC and CA decisions, reopen the case, and obtain injunctive relief.

ISSUE

Whether the petition for certiorari and prohibition is proper to assail the final and executory decisions in LRC Case No. Q-18126(04), and whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in granting TRY Foundation’s petition for issuance of a new title.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The Court held that the doctrine of immutability of final judgments applies, as the Resolutions in G.R. No. 190193 had already become final and executory. A final judgment can no longer be altered, even to correct errors of fact or law. The proper remedy against a final judgment is not certiorari under Rule 65, but a petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38 (if filed within the reglementary period) or an action to annul the judgment on the ground of extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction. Certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal. The Court found that PWCTUI failed to demonstrate that the RTC acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in LRC Case No. Q-18126(04). The RTC, acting as a land registration court, had jurisdiction over the petition under Section 108 of P.D. No. 1529, which allows any person interested to seek the amendment or alteration of a certificate of title upon certain grounds. The RTC’s determination that the expiration of PWCTUI’s corporate term triggered the reversion clause and that TRY Foundation, as Yangco’s heirs, were “persons in interest” entitled to file the petition, was within its jurisdiction. The Court also noted that the issues raised by PWCTUI regarding the interpretation of the donation, its corporate existence, and TRY Foundation’s heirship were matters already resolved in the final judgment and could not be relitigated. The ancillary prayer to reopen the case was denied, as the grounds cited did not constitute extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction. The provisional remedy of injunction was also denied due to the finality of the judgment sought to be enforced.