G.R. No. 83720 October 4, 1991
FELICITAS ENRIQUEZ, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, SPS. REYNALDO SANTOS and NATIVIDAD SANTOS, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Felicitas Enriquez and private respondent spouses Santos were long-time occupants of neighboring lots within a larger tract owned by spouses de Dios. In 1976, the Santos spouses purchased a 200-square meter portion of the land, and it was later discovered that Enriquez’s house stood within this purchased lot. Consequently, Enriquez paid rent to the Santos spouses. In 1982, the Santos spouses filed an ejectment suit against Enriquez, which resulted in a judgment ordering her to vacate. Separately, in 1983, Enriquez filed a complaint for damages against the Santos spouses. The Regional Trial Court, in that damages case, surprisingly ordered the Santos spouses to sell the 90-square meter portion occupied by Enriquez’s house to her at a set price and to pay her damages.
The Santos spouses appealed this RTC decision to the Court of Appeals. After procedural motions regarding the timeliness of the appeal were resolved, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision on August 27, 1987, setting aside the RTC’s order for forced sale and damages. Enriquez’s motion for reconsideration was denied, and the CA decision was entered as final and executory on February 3, 1988. Instead of filing a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, Enriquez filed the instant special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, assailing the CA decision after it had become final.

ISSUE

Whether a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 is a proper remedy to assail a Court of Appeals decision that has already become final and executory.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The legal logic is anchored on the doctrine of finality of judgment. The records conclusively showed that the assailed Court of Appeals decision was entered as final and executory on February 3, 1988. As a settled rule, once a judgment attains finality, it becomes immutable and unalterable. The issues resolved therein are laid to rest, and the decision becomes the law of the case between the parties, regardless of any claim of error. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 cannot be used to substitute for a lost appeal. Rule 65 is an extraordinary remedy available only when there is no appeal nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Its purpose is to correct errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment. Since the ordinary remedy of appeal via a petition for review under Rule 45 was available but was lost due to the finality of the CA decision, certiorari is not a proper substitute. The Court found no exceptional circumstance in the case that would warrant a deviation from this established principle, such as where the appeal remedy is inadequate or would cause irreparable injury. Therefore, the final and executory status of the Court of Appeals decision bars the Supreme Court from disturbing it through a Rule 65 petition.