G.R. No. 91486 November 20, 2001
Alberto G. Pinlac, et al., petitioners, vs. Court of Appeals, Atty. Corazon A. Merrera, et al., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of this Court’s Decision dated January 19, 2001, which affirmed the Court of Appeals. The CA had annulled a Partial Decision from the trial court in a land title case. The petitioners raised two grounds. First, they argued that there was valid service of summons by publication on the private respondents. Second, they contended that a specific portion of the trial court’s Partial Decision concerning “Lot No. 3,” originally covered by OCT No. 333, should be reinstated. They asserted that this portion was never appealed by the defendants whose properties were situated on Lot No. 3 and whose titles were derived from OCT No. 333, making it final and executory as to them.
The trial court’s Partial Decision had, among other things, declared null and void the area of OCT No. 333 in excess of its true area and ordered the cancellation of all derivative titles covering that excess. The petition for annulment of judgment before the CA was filed only by owners of lots within the Vilma Maloles Subdivision, which were situated on a different “Lot No. 2” and derived from a separate mother title, OCT No. 614. The owners of properties on Lot No. 3, derived from OCT No. 333, did not join this petition or appeal the trial court’s ruling against them.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in annulling the entirety of the trial court’s Partial Decision, including the portions pertaining to Lot No. 3 and the defendants who did not appeal.

RULING

The motion for reconsideration is partially granted. The Court finds no merit in the first ground regarding valid summons, upholding its prior finding of invalid service. However, the petitioners’ second ground is meritorious. The Court of Appeals erred in annulling the portions of the Partial Decision concerning Lot No. 3 (OCT No. 333).
The legal logic is clear on finality of judgments. The defendants whose properties were on Lot No. 3 and whose titles derived from OCT No. 333 did not file a timely appeal from the trial court’s Partial Decision. Consequently, the judgment against them became final and executory by mere lapse of time. The appellate court lost jurisdiction to alter this final judgment. The petition for annulment filed by the owners from Lot No. 2 cannot be deemed an appeal for the benefit of the non-appealing Lot No. 3 owners, as there is no common cause or interest—their properties originate from different mother titles and lots. Therefore, the annulment of the judgment as to Lot No. 3 was improper. The Court’s January 2001 Decision is modified to reinstate the trial court’s paragraphs on OCT No. 333, while affirming the CA decision in all other respects.