GR 59284; (January, 1990) (Digest)
G.R. No. 59284; January 12, 1990
JUANITO CARDOZA, petitioner, vs. HON. PABLO S. SINGSON, Judge of Branch I of the Court of First Instance of Southern Leyte, ROMULO G. MADREDIJO, Executive Sheriff of Maasin, Southern Leyte, PONCIANO ALVAREZ and CIRILO ALVAREZ, respondents.
FACTS
The case originated from a 1938 trial court decision, affirmed with modification by the Court of Appeals in 1939, involving a property dispute. The plaintiffs (private respondents’ predecessors) filed a motion for execution in 1979, alleging they only learned of the appellate decision in 1974 due to their original counsel’s death in 1944 and the lack of record showing service of the decision. Certifications from the Clerks of Court of both the trial court and the Court of Appeals indicated no record of such service and that the appellate records were destroyed in 1945. The trial court, after proceedings where the petitioner failed to submit required memoranda, issued an order in July 1981 for a nunc pro tunc entry of the Court of Appeals judgment and a corresponding writ of execution. The writ was implemented in November 1981, leading to the property’s turnover. Petitioner Juanito Cardoza, claiming ownership through deeds executed in the 1960s, filed the instant petition seeking to annul the writ and restore his possession.
ISSUE
The decisive issues are: (1) whether the 1938/1939 judgment can still be enforced, and (2) whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering a nunc pro tunc entry of judgment and issuing the writ of execution.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, ruling the judgment could still be enforced and the trial court acted correctly. Under the then-governing Code of Civil Procedure (Act No. 190), a party had five years from the entry of judgment to obtain a writ of execution. The Court found no record of any entry of judgment for the 1939 appellate decision. Consequently, the five-year period for execution never commenced. The trial court’s order for a nunc pro tunc (now for then) entry was a proper exercise of its equitable powers to record a judgment actually rendered but never formally entered, a remedy recognized in jurisprudence (Lichauco v. Tan Pho). This action did not constitute grave abuse of discretion, as it merely allowed the enforcement of a long-final judgment. The petitioner was given ample opportunity to oppose but failed to submit supporting memoranda or sufficient evidence of his claimed ownership. A final and executory judgment can no longer be altered except for clerical errors, and the trial court’s duty is limited to its execution.