GR 213972; (February, 2018) (Digest)
G.R. No. 213972 February 5, 2018
FELICITAS L. SALAZAR, Petitioner vs. REMEDIOS FELIAS, on her own behalf and representation of the other HEIRS OF CATALINO NIVERA, Respondents
FACTS
The Heirs of Catalino Nivera filed a Complaint for Recovery of Ownership against Spouses Romualdo and Felisa Lastimosa over four parcels of land. Romualdo died during trial, and his heirs, including Felicitas Salazar, were substituted. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of the Heirs of Nivera, declaring them absolute owners and ordering the Heirs of Lastimosa to vacate and pay damages. This 2004 RTC Decision became final and executory as the Heirs of Lastimosa did not appeal. Subsequently, Felicitas Salazar filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgment, claiming deprivation of due process for not being impleaded. The Court of Appeals (CA) and the Supreme Court dismissed this petition, ruling the judgment was binding on all heirs, with finality entered in 2009.
Thereafter, the Heirs of Lastimosa filed an Urgent Motion to Desist from Demolition, while the Heirs of Nivera filed a Motion for Execution. The RTC granted the execution. The Heirs of Lastimosa appealed this order. The CA dismissed the appeal, noting the wrong remedy was used and that the issue of Felicitas’s non-inclusion was barred by res judicata. Felicitas then filed this petition for review, arguing the property constituted a family home exempt from execution and that her exclusion rendered the judgment unenforceable against her share.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the order for execution of the final and executory 2004 RTC Decision.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA. The core legal principle is that a final and executory judgment must be executed as a matter of right. The claim that the property is a family home exempt from execution is an affirmative defense that must be timely set up and proven; it cannot be raised for the first time to obstruct execution after finality. Felicitas failed to plead and substantiate this exemption during the trial or in prior proceedings. Furthermore, the issue of her alleged exclusion from the case is barred by res judicata, having been conclusively settled in the prior annulment case where the Court ruled the judgment bound all heirs of the original defendants. Execution is the final stage of litigation, and the Court will not countenance dilatory tactics that deprive a prevailing party of the fruits of a long-final verdict. The RTC’s 2004 Decision, having attained finality over a decade prior, must be implemented without further delay.