G.R. No. L-18605; October 31, 1963
Severino Samson, petitioner, vs. Hon. Gregorio D. Montejo, Judge of Court of First Instance of Basilan City and Gregorio Dinglasa, respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Gregorio Dinglasa, a homestead grantee, sold his land to petitioner Severino Samson on December 13, 1947. Within the five-year redemption period under the Homestead Act, Dinglasa sought to repurchase the property in 1950, but Samson refused. Dinglasa filed an action for redemption. The trial court, in a 1956 decision, ordered Samson to execute a deed of resale to Dinglasa without returning the P2,000 purchase price, as this amount was deemed compensated by the income Samson derived from the land for five years and eight months. The court also ordered Samson to pay Dinglasa a balance of P1,300 and attorney’s fees. This judgment became final after successive appeals to the Supreme Court were dismissed.
After a writ of execution was issued, Samson filed a Motion to Modify Writ of Execution on April 17, 1961. He argued that during the prolonged pendency of the proceedings, he remained in possession and enjoyed the fruits of the land. The respondent judge granted the motion in an Order dated April 27, 1961, amending the writ to include an additional P3,000 against Samson. This sum represented the alleged income from the property for five years from the date of the decision to the date of the writ.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in modifying the writ of execution to include an additional monetary award after the judgment had become final.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion. The court emphasized the doctrine of immutability of final judgments. Once a decision becomes final and executory, the court that rendered it loses jurisdiction to alter or modify its substantive portions. The mission of the court is limited to the execution and enforcement of the judgment strictly in accordance with its express terms.
The modification ordered by the respondent judge was a material and substantial alteration, as it increased Samson’s monetary liability by P3,000. This additional award for alleged income during the post-decision period was not part of the original, final judgment. Claims for such subsequent fruits or income require a separate proceeding where the parties can properly litigate the matter, presenting defenses such as entitlement to a share for labor or proof of actual production. The respondent judge, by modifying the writ, effectively amended the final decision without due process, thereby acting without or in excess of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court granted the certiorari petition, annulled the challenged order, and made the writ of preliminary injunction permanent.